Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill.

Bill committed.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into com plied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bromborough Dock Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing
Orders applicable thereto complied
with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order
(Ealing Extension) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order
(No. 2) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DYESTUFFS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the weight of dyestuffs imported in 1927 and the estimated weight of dyestuffs produced in the United Kingdom in 1927 and, for comparison, the corresponding figures in 1913; and how the general level of prices of dyestuffs in 1927 compared with that in 1913?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The imports into the United Kingdom of synthetic dyestuffs amounted to 40 million lbs. weight in 1913, and to 4¾ million lbs. weight in 1927. Production in the United Kingdom amounted to about 9 million lbs. weight in 1913, and to 35½ million lbs. weight in 1927. I understand that the average price of these dyestuffs is at present about 1s. 7d. a lb., as compared with 1s. a 1b. in 1913.

EXPORTS.

Sir J. POWER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the exports of British goods during 1927 to the principal foreign and Empire countries expressed per head of population of the respective countries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer has been prepared in tabular form, and my hon. Friend will perhaps permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the approximate value of the exports of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, consigned to the undermentioned countries during the year 1927, per head of the population of each importing country.

Country to which consigned.
British Exports per head of the population of importing country.


Foreign countries:

£
s.
d.


Russia



7


Sweden
…
1
11
9


Norway
…
2
13
10


Denmark
…
2
16
3


Germany
…

13
3


Netherlands
…
2
16
1


Belgium
…
2
1
10


France
…

11
7


Switzerland
…
1
18
7


Spain
…

9
5


Italy
…

6
8


Egypt
…

17
9


Dutch East Indies
…

3
5


China
…


5


Japan
…

4
9


United States of America
…

7
9


Brazil
…

7
9


Argentina
…
2
12
2


Chile
…
1
5
11


British countries:


Canada
…
3
1
6


Australia
…
9
18
5


New Zealand
…
13
12
10


Union of South Africa
…
3
18
8


Irish Free State
…
12
4
5


India
…

5
4


British West Africa
…

12
10


British Malaya
…
3
18
10


Ceylon
…
1
2
11

COTTON TRADE (EXPORT OF MACHINERY).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Glebe Mill, Hollenwood, Oldham, has been sold at a break-up price and the machinery shipped to the Far East to be operated by cheaper labour and for longer hours; that 400 workers are thus unemployed in this country; whether there are other similar sales of machinery projected to Indian and Japanese capitalists; and what steps, if any, does he propose to take in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of the particular case mentioned
by the hon. Member, but it is the fact that a number of cotton-spinning mills are being closed down and their machinery sold. Some portion of such machinery may be shipped abroad, but I have no power to prohibit such export.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The question does not ask the right hon. Gentleman as to his power of prohibiting exports. Can he answer the last part of the question, which asks what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter, or whether he proposes to allow this proceeding to continue?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understood that that referred to the question as to whether I could stop the export of materials, but, if it refers generally to the position in the cotton trade, I really have nothing to add to the rather long speech which I made on that subject in the course of the Debate the other day.

Mr. W. THORNE: If this machinery is exported to Japan or India will not these machines operate in those two countries, and will not that mean keener competition for this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That may be so to some extent, but the only power I should have to stop machinery being exported would be if this House were to pass an Act of Parliament to say that machinery could only be exported under a licence of the Board of Trade, or if the export were prohibited altogether.

Mr. THORNE: Does this mean that, so far as employers are concerned, they do not care where the machinery goes as long as they get the money?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that is at all a fair reflection to make. If a company goes into liquidation and its assets are disposed of, it is inevitable that the machinery is sold. What is much more important is that there should be amalgamation and reconstruction in this trade, but that must come from within the trade—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] of course, it must—so that new machinery may be installed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are other means and other methods besides prohibition of export of machinery by which this situation can be dealt with?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is always the possibility of giving subsidies to industry, but I think that is a thoroughly unsound practice, which would not commend itself to the House. The other alternative is for the industry itself to try to make itself as efficient as possible.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not the manufacture of machinery employ a great number of engineers, many of whom are out of work, and is it not desirable that the export of machinery from this country should go on?

ARMS AND AMMUNITIONS (EXPORTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences for the export of arms and munitions have been issued to private persons and companies during the last three years; what was the total value of the arms and munitions exported by such persons and/or companies under licence during the same period; and what were the total quantities of cannon, aeroplanes, machine guns, rifles, and ammunition, respectively, exported by private persons and/or companies during that same period?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total number of licences issued for the export of arms, ammunition, gunpowder, military and naval stores, etc., during the three years 1925, 1926 and 1927, was approximately 35,300, but less than 3 per cent. of this total represents licences issued to private persons and companies for the export of military materials to foreign countries. The great majority of the licences were for the export to British Possessions of non-military materials such as sporting weapons and ammunition, and

The following table shows the numbers and declared values of the Exports (the manufacture of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) of Aeroplanes and the specifies kinds of Arms and Ammunition from Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered during the years 1925, 1926 and 1927.


Description.
1925.
1926.
1927. (Provisional figures.)








Quantities.


Aeroplanes
No.
No.
No.


Complete
…
…
…
…
…
148
150
140


Parts:


Engines
…
…
…
…
…
492
266
386


Other
…
…
…
…
…
Recorded by value only.

explosives for industrial use. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the totals as to aeroplanes and certain descriptions of military arms and ammunition exported in each of the last three years.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman circulates that information, could he differentiate what is not for Government service, and what has gone to foreign countries, as regards both values and quantities?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As regards the first point, yes, because the list I circulate gives aeroplanes, arms, and ammunition. With regard to the destination, I do not think it would be possible to state the exports to each foreign country without an enormous amount of labour.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want the destination. Could the right hon. Gentleman give me information as to how much has gone to foreign countries without specifying which foreign countries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already given that information in the answer, which says that about 3 per cent. of the total export of material represents export to foreign countries.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is not the President calling for a weekly or monthly returns of all licences issued for export for military purposes, so that he may keep some check on this point?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I issue the licences.

Following is the table:

Description.
1925.
1926.
1927.(Provisional figures.)



Quantities.


Arms:


Ordnance:
No.
No.
No.


Guns, Howitzers, Mortars and parts thereof
51
50
24


Automatic Machine and Quick-firing Guns and parts thereof.
824
1,571
2,085


Gun Mountings and Carriages and parts thereof.
236
231
157


Small Arms:


Military Rifles and Carbines (Complete)
15,201
8,611
28,066


Miniature and Cadet Rifles and Carbines (Complete).
1,173
962
413


Ammunition:


Shot and Shell
25,212
55,061
29,147


Metal Cartridge Cases, other than small arms ammunition:


Filled
21,284
70,317
42,759


Empty
9,034
28,421
4,480


Small Arms Ammunition:


Military Ammunition:


Loaded Cartridges
55,432,500
40,546,700
43,695,264


Empty Cartridge Cases
79,300
967,700
190,496

NOTE.—The exports shown above include purchases made on behalf of the Governments of certain British countries overseas, whether direct or through the Service Departments.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATIONS).

Mr. FENBY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the value of the material proposed to be imported representing dyestuffs of British origin is required before there is

sufficient ground for the issue of a licence under Section 2 (4) of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member will see from Section 2 (4) of the Act that it is necessary for the
Licensing Committee to be satisfied that the goods, to which an application for a licence relates, are wholly produced or manufactured in some part of His Majesty's Dominions.

Mr. FENBY: 6 and 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether it is necessary for the 40,000 users of imported coloured inks, manufactured in America with British dyes, to make individual representations to the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee, giving detailed information as to their specific requirements and definite evidence showing precisely in what respects the drawing inks obtainable from British sources are unsatisfactory for their purpose; and under what provision such imported inks are refused importation to this country;
(2) why, as there is no prohibition on the importation of articles treated by dyestuffs, British or other, coloured ink from America manufactured with British dyestuffs is now held up at the London Docks?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I informed the hon. Member on 28th February, the importation of inks which are "synthetic organic dyestuffs, colours or colouring matters," is prohibited by the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act. The Licensing Committee, constituted under the Act, are, however, prepared to consider representations from any users who claim that they are unable to obtain satisfactory inks of British manufacture.

GERMANY (TRADE TREATY).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the injury which the abrogation of the Trade Treaty with Germany would inflict on British exports to that country, he has formed any estimate of the value of trade that would, be adversely affected in this way?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I have not thought it necessary to consider such a hypothetical case, seeing that the Treaty will in any event remain in force till 8th September, 1930.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take this fact into account when he is proposing additional safeguarding, and does he not realise that the injury to British exports may be far greater than any gain he may expect to get?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are the Commercial Relations Department considering the Treaty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The Treaty continues in any event till the 8th September, 1930, and in any consideration given to this or a future Treaty the policy of His Majesty's present advisers will be guided solely by the interests of British industry.

WIRELESS BEACONS.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what developments have taken place up to the present in the installation of wireless beacons round our coast; and how the costs of establishment and upkeep compare with those of lighthouses?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a rather long one. Accordingly, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Two wireless beacons are now in operation, at Round Island, Scilly, and at Skerries off the coast of Anglesea, while three, at Caskets, Lundy and Start, are in course of erection and are expected to be in operation in a few months' time. Several more are projected. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed by the Trinity House that the first cost of a wireless beacon installation at an existing lighthouse is from £3,500 to £4,500, depending on local conditions, and the estimated cost of maintenance is £300 per annum. If a wireless beacon were installed at a place where there is not already a lighthouse the cost of establishment would be much greater, and the cost of maintenance would be increased to approximately £1,000 per annum. It is not possible to make any useful comparison between these costs and the costs of the erection and maintenance of lighthouses, particularly as, owing to local conditions and requirements, there is necessarily a very great difference between the costs of different lighthouses. The cost of constructing new lighthouses since 1897 has ranged from £2,400 to £,88,000 according to the situation of the lighthouse.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present strength of the British Army of Occupation in Germany; and what is its approximate annual cost?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. and gallant Member will find the figures, which include the small detachment in the Saar, on pages 294 and 295 of Army Estimates, 1928.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Secretary of State aware that that does not include the cost?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, it does.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I looked, but I could not find it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is indeed included, because I looked myself this morning.

FILMS, RHINELAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any system of censorship of cinematograph films in the occupied territories in Germany in the area occupied by His Majesty's Army; if so, who exercises this censorship; and whether British and American films are subject to the censorship or only German films?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Under an Ordinance of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission the exhibition of films of any nationality is forbidden if they are such as would prejudice public order or endanger the security or dignity of the High Commission or of the Troops of Occupation. In cases of emergency, films which contravene this Ordinance may be seized by order of the military authorities. Films dealing with the late War or those directed against the Army of Occupation are prohibited. Apart from this there is no censorship of films by the Allied authorities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question? I want to know who actually sees these films and decides whether they shall be shown?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Rhineland High Commission. As stated in my answer, the British military authorities can act in an emergency.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any British films have been banned under this ordinance?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say without notice.

WAR DEPARTMENT, SINGAPORE (EMPLOYEéS).

Mr. KELLY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of civilians employed by his Department at the Singapore base; and what rate of wages is paid to labourers employed by the War Department at Singapore?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the first part of the question, the information is not available in this country. As regards the second part, the rates of wages paid to labourers are fixed by the General Officer Commanding in accordance with the current local market rates.

Mr. KELLY: If this work is let out on contract and there is a Fair Wages Clause in the contract, how is it that the War Department has no knowledge of the wages paid, in order that they can see that there has been compliance with the Clause?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that no single one of the supplementary questions of the hon. Member arises out of the original question, but if the hon. Member will put them down I will give him an answer.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any personal knowledge, or has his Department any knowledge, of the social and housing provisions made for these civilian workers in Singapore?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. J. JONES: On that point, I submit that the question of the condition of the civilians employed there is a matter of importance to this House, and from my personal observation the conditions are not satisfactory.

HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"

ROYAL WARRANT, ARTICLE 627A.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War
whether he will consider an amendment of the new Article, No. 627a, in the Royal Warrant, issued on 25th October, 1927, so as to include the 500 ex-officers who were serving on a normal engagement at the outbreak of war in August, 1914, and who were awarded only temporary commissions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, the Article refers to the future only.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: May we take it that the new Article 627a is an admission on the part of the War Office of the injustice meted out in the War to the long-service men in the ranks in putting them in a different position from the short-service men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FIREARMS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. HAYES: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there have been any prosecutions during the past 12 months in Scotland under the Firearms Act, 1920, in connection with the sale and possession of so-called toy pistols and revolvers; and, if so, with what result?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): According to my information during the past 12 months there were two such prosecutions. One of the offenders was admonished, and the other, who was charged with breach of the peace by discharging a loaded firearm and being in possession of a firearm without a certificate, was sentenced to three months imprisonment.

Mr. HAYES: Does the law in Scotland enable a person who purchases firearms in this country to proceed beyond the border without running the risk of being arrested?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I could not answer that question without notice.

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department of Education has approached the railway companies with a view to reaching an
arrangement enabling students to travel between their homes and their universities at reduced fares?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply is in the negative.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would the right hon. Gentleman himself apply this legal power, having regard to the fact that political parties received these cheaper fares, and does he not recognise the advantage it would be to the students at these universities to receive similar facilities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the proper parties to negotiate with in this matter would be the authorities at the universities.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to state when the Nairn Committee on the Finance of Land Settlement in Scotland will present a Report; and whether the Report will be published?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that the Committee are now engaged on the drafting of their Report, but that they cannot state when the Report will be presented to me. The question of publication of the Report will be considered after I receive it.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES (SALARIES).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why no advance has yet been granted in the salaries of the staffs of the Scottish colleges of agriculture; and why the governors of the respective colleges are prevented by the Board of Agriculture from giving adequate remuneration to their staffs?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The revised scales of salaries which have been approved by the Treasury after discussion with the Board of Agriculture have recently been communicated by the Board to the college authorities. There is no foundation for the suggestion in the second part of the question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the authorities of the college are anxious to increase the salaries beyond the scale which has been approved, and that, as a matter of fact, this advance is being held up for that reason?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, a good deal of negotiation has taken place, and matters have recently reached a point more advantageous than the position in which they were before. I think it would be as well to wait and see the result of the decision which has been reached.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Are the negotiations still proceeding?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think they have reached a stage of approval of the conditions.

GOVERNMENT STOCKS (TRANSFER).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the obstacles placed in the way of the transfer of British Government stock according to the law of Scotland between persons domiciled in Scotland: and whether he has decided to take any steps to ensure that the laws of Scotland as to heritages and transfers shall be applied in the case of Government securities?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): This matter has been examined, and it is clear that legislation would be required to give effect to the wishes expressed by my hon. and learned

ACCIDENTS arising directly out of the use of explosives, and the number of persons killed and injured thereby, at mines under the COAL MINES AND METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATION ACTS. The figures do not include explosions of firedamp or coal dust caused by the use of explosives.





Fatal Accidents.
Non-Fatal Accidents.


Year
Separate accidents.
Persons killed.
Death rate per million lbs. of explosives used.
Separate accidents.
Persons injured.
Injury rate per million lbs. of explosives used.


1921*
…
…
14
14
0.7
151
167
8.2


1922
…
…
19
19
0.7
269
315
10.8


1923
…
…
18
18
0.5
308
347
10.4


1924
…
…
37
44
1.3
292
326
9.8


1925
…
…
23
23
0.8
241
277
9.4


1926*
…
…
19
19
1.2
149
176
11.0


* In these years work at coal mines was reduced by protracted disputes and the number of accidents was consequently affected.

SAFETY DETONATORS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that His Majesty's inspector at Swansea, Mr. J. Dyer Lewis, declared at a meeting of mining engineers in 1921 that a

Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and other hon. Members. I have the matter under consideration.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can we get any indication from the Government as to when this matter is going to be dealt with?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being considered at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENTS (SHOT-FIRING).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the number of accidents from shot-firing that have occurred from 1921 to 1926?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As the reply involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether there is an increase or a decrease between 1921 and 1926?

Commodore KING: There has been a slight increase in the fatal accidents, but the hon. Member will see the figures.

Following are the figures:

safety detonator had been invented which would make it possible to withdraw the load from an explosive charge and obviate the danger from tampering with misfired shots; and to what extent this is being used?

Commodore KING: I assume that the hon. Member refers to certain observations made by Mr. Dyer Lewis at a meeting of the South Wales Institute of Engineers in 1919, in the course of discussion on an appliance for withdrawing the detonator in case of a misfire. Tampering with missed fire-shots is prohibited by the Explosives in Coal Mines Order, and I am advised that if the procedure prescribed by that Order for dealing with missed fire-shots is carried out, there is no need to use appliances of the kind referred to. The appliance in question, known as the "Adder," was, however, exempted from the prohibition by an Order in 1920, but so far as I am aware it has never been brought into use.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does not the Minister attach some importance to the opinion of a man so experienced on this subject as Mr. Lewis?

Commodore KING: Certainly I do, and I think the answer conveys the opinion of the Department on the invention.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that before the exemption was granted to this appliance the Department had gone into the whole business, and had satisfied itself that it was a really good thing; and, in view of the answer given to the last question to the effect that the number of fatal accidents from this cause has gone up, is it not time that steps were taken to make the use of this appliance compulsory?

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member looks at my answer to the previous question, he will see that the death-rate is not so high as he seems to think.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that in 1926 the death-rate was the highest for the previous five years, and is it not time, in view of our knowledge on this question, that the death-rate went down instead of up?

ANTHRACITE COAL SUPPLIES (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. GRENFELL: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give a record, as the result of his inquiry, of the accidents that have happened to private users of anthracite coal which have been
attributed to explosives or detonators in the coal sold to customers at home and abroad?

Commodore KING: As a result of inquiries into explosions in anthracite stoves in 1922 and 1923, the owners of anthracite mines changed the type of explosive used. One such explosion occurred in 1924 and one in 1925, but since the latter year no reports of similar explosions have reached my Department or the Home Office.

GUSS AND WHEELLESS TUBS.

Mr. WHITELEY: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the experiments to displace the use of the guss for hauling wheelless tubs have proved successful; if so, what is the nature of such experiments; and when are they likely to be fully adopted?

Commodore KING: I regret that I am unable to anticipate the report of the Commitee.

MARKETING SCHEME, MIDLANDS.

Mr. PALING: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is yet in a position to state the full terms of the coal-marketing scheme recently set up by the coal owners in the Midland counties?

Commodore KING: No, Sir, I am advised that the terms of this scheme are not finally settled.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the secretary for Mines aware that, in anticipation of the application of this scheme, miners all over South Yorkshire have been put on short time or dismissed?

Commodore KING: I think that subject is dealt with in the next question.

Mr. PALING: May we take it that when this scheme is finally settled the Department will issue the terms?

Commodore KING: Certainly I expect the terms will be issued.

Mr. PALING: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners dismissed from the collieries in the Midland counties as a result of the operation of the new coal marketing scheme?

Commodore KING: As this scheme is not in operation, this question does not arise.

Mr. PALING: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that, although the scheme has not been fully settled, many of the collieries have partly adopted it, and is he not aware that in a few months as a result in five Exchanges round about Doncaster the number of unemployed rose from 3,000 to over 8,000?

Commodore KING: No, Sir, I cannot understand how that can be affected by a scheme, the details of which have not been settled.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that, although the scheme has not been finally settled, it has been partly put into operation, and that what I have just stated is the first result of it?

Commodore KING: I cannot understand how the scheme can be put into operation when it has not yet been definitely settled.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the number of men going on short time is nothing at present compared with what it will be when the whole of the Samuel Report is adopted?

SOUTH WALES.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the people in the mining valleys in South Wales caused by the continued depression in the coal industry; and what steps, if any, the Government propose taking to deal with this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. The Government are, of course, aware of the continued depression in the mining valleys of South Wales, and of the great difficulties which it is bound to create, and they are keeping in close touch with the situation, but they have no evidence so far that the various existing forms of social assistance, though necessarily subjected to great strain, are inadequate to deal with it.

Mr. HALL: Have the Ministry, of Health or the Government conducted any inquiry to ascertain whether the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is right or not?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; we are in close touch with our officials.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plan ready for the time when the strain on these local agencies becomes too great?

Sir W. WOOD: That is another question.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the Miners' Federation and the coalowners are complaining of this position, and is it not high time that the Government, who are the chief cause of it, took action?

Sir K. WOOD: There are great doubts about that.

Mr. PALING: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position, bad as it is, is becoming acute and is getting worse day by day, arid, in view of the fact that we are constantly reading of mines being shut down and more men being thrown out of work, is he prepared to do anything in regard to the amalgation of mines, so that the miners can get work?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is simply repeating the original question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC (ELEPHANT AND CASTLE

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the London Traffic Advisory Committee have considered the introduction of the roundabout one-way traffic system at the Elephant and Castle, in the borough of Southwark; and whether he can state what decision has been arrived at?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Committee have considered this matter and have advised me that it would not be practicable to operate a roundabout one-way traffic system at the Elephant and Castle for a variety of reasons, and that the best method of affording relief would be to provide alternative routes enabling traffic to by-pass this congested point. A start has already been made in this direction by widening Harper Street and Union Street and negotiations are proceeding with a view to further improvements.

PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE, GLAMORGANSHIRE.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Great Western Railway Company have discontinued the passenger train service on the branch line between Blackmill and Gilfach Goch, Glamorganshire, and substituted a very unsatisfactory road motor service; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the mining population of about 15,000 in and about Gilfach Goch, he will take steps to have this passenger train service restored without delay?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that the passenger train service referred to by the hon. Member was withdrawn by the railway company in consequence of the small number of passengers using it, but that in view of the representations received, the company have agreed to reinstate it.

ILLUMINATION TESTS, RICHMOND PARK.

Sir R. THOMAS: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department will be represented at the road transport illumination demonstration to be held in Richmond Park on 29th March under the auspices of the Royal Automobile Club; and will the results of the tests be officially published?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I cannot say what steps will be taken by the Royal Automobile Club in the direction of the publication of a Report on the results of the demonstration.

MOTOR OMNIBUS DRIVERS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the introduction of six-wheeled motor-omnibuses of increased length, weight and passenger-carrying capacity, he has instituted any inquiries to ascertain whether the additional physical strain imposed upon the drivers of these vehicles is likely to result in danger to themselves and the public?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am advised that there is no reason why vehicles of the kind to which the hon. Member refers, if properly designed and constructed, should impose any increased strain upon the
persons who drive them. No complaints have, so far as I am aware, been made to my Department that vehicles of this type actually in use have proved difficult to handle, and I have, therefore, not thought it necessary to institute any general inquiries into the matter.

Sir R. THOMAS: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not noticed the careworn faces of these drivers as compared with the robust faces of the horse omnibus drivers?

Mr. MARCH: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taken into consideration any representations from the men concerned, or has he had any discussions with any of them on this matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not that I am aware of. No representations have been made, and no consultations have taken place.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Ministry of Transport keep an eye on the number of hours these men work on the long distance routes?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; that has nothing to do with the Ministry of Transport.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Department deals with this question?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should be loth to ascribe duties to a brother Minister, but I should say it would be a matter for the Minister of Labour.

ROAD GRANTS (BRITISH STONE).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport why it is not practicable to make reduced grants from the Road Fund to local authorities which do not use British materials?

Colonel ASHLEY: There are many works of road maintenance carried out by highway authorities which do not come under the review of my Department, and which are not assisted by grants from the Road Fund. While impressing upon highway authorities the importance of using British materials to the utmost possible extent, I am not prepared entirely to remove their discretion in the matter, nor do I think it would be practicable to insist as a general practice on receiving information as to the origin of materials
used on works which are the subject of grants as distinct from other works carried out by the same authority.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: Would it not be quite simple for the right hon. Gentleman to demand a guarantee from the local authorities that they were using British materials, and, if not, to reduce their grants by 5 or 7 per cent.?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not prepared to do that, and I cannot interfere with the discretion of the local authority.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTE: Could they not have discretion as to whether they accepted a 5 per cent. reduction or used British materials?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport the value of the road stone, setts, and kerbs imported during the year 1927; and how much of this sum is covered by grants from the Road Fund?

Colonel ASHLEY: The following is the declared value for the year 1927 of the importation into Great Britain and Northern Ireland from foreign countries of materials to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers:



£


(1) Granite, other than setts and pavement kerbs and monumental and architectural objects
232,305


(2) Granite setts and pavement kerbs
365,375


It should be observed that the first category may include classes of material which are not used as road-stone. I cannot say how large a proportion of these imported materials was utilised for works eligible for assistance from the Road Fund.

OMNIBUS SERVICES, NORTH LONDON.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to sanction the reduction of omnibus services during slack hours upon certain routes north of Finsbury Park; and whether, in view of the increasing congestion upon these routes during the rush hours, he will ask the London Traffic Advisory Committee to consider the provision of additional facilities during the morning and evening periods?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have already asked the local authorities in this area to furnish me with their views on this subject, and the whole matter is now under consideration by the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose, after all the agitation of the local authorities in that neighbourhood, to sanction a reduction of their present facilities without giving them any relief in the rush hours?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have stated that I have asked them to furnish me with their views, and that the whole matter will be considered.

Mr. MORRISON: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will not sanction this proposal if the whole of the local authorities are opposed to it?

Colonel ASHLEY: No; what the hon. Member may assume is that I shall not come to a decision without considering very carefully the views of the local authorities.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman Say that, if he is called upon to sanction this proposal, he will endeavour to get the London Traffic Advisory Committee to provide increased facilities in the rush hours, in order to compensate for the reduction in the other hours?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member may rest assured that I will do my best.

BRIDGES AND LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations from the Commercial Motor Users' Association, and from chambers of commerce and other representative bodies in different parts of the country, as to the serious loss and inconvenience caused to trade and industry by the existence of weak bridges and level crossings on many important roads; and what special action he proposes to take with regard to the reconstruction of these bridges and the substitution of bridges for level crossings in urgent cases?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. During the coming financial
year I propose to set aside a, sum of £250,000 to be distributed by way of special grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of the reconstruction of weak railway and canal bridges and the construction of bridges to replace level crossings on important roads. I would also draw attention to the Bridges Bill recently introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Ludlow Division (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive). The provisions of the Bill, of which I am generally in favour, have, for a long time, been the subject of negotiation between representatives of the county councils and of the statutory undertakings concerned with the assistance of my Department. The Bill supplies greatly needed machinery for facilitating the reconstruction of weak bridges which are the property of statutory bodies other than highway authorities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that answer mean that the Corporation of the City of Hull can now re-open the question of level crossings, which has been turned down against the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman's own experts last year

Colonel ASHLEY: There is nothing to prevent the Corporation of Hull communicating with me.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman incorporate this in the Road Traffic Bill next year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not sure whether it comes within the scope of the Bill, but I will certainly consider the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EMPLOYMENT REGULATIONS (T. CONNOR, PEEBLES).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Thomas Connor, of Peebles, after completing 18 years and nine months' service in the Black Watch, was given a certificate of exemplary character, granted the long service and good conduct medal, the 1914 Star and Bar, and British War and Victory medals; that he registered for employment as a permanent postal worker; that his application has been rejected on the grounds that he is under the height as fixed by the Post Officer employment regulations; and is
he prepared to have altered those regulations to bring them in line with the minimum height regulations for service in the Army or Navy

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Mr. Connor was, as stated by the hon. Member, rejected for established appointment as postman on the ground that he was under the minimum height. In view, however, of the special circumstances in his case, I hope that it may be possible to find him a suitable permanent post, provided that he is eligible in all other respects.

BOOKMAKER'S ADVERTISEMENT.

Mr. AMMON: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to an advertisement of a well-known bookmaker in a certain periodical in which appear the words Represented on every course by His Majesty's telegraph office; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent such use of the name of a Government Department

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to the advertisement in question, and I am considering what steps can be taken in the matter.

SAVINGS BANK (UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS).

Mr. DAY: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of unclaimed deposits in the hands of the Post Office Savings Bank for which no application has been made during the last 10 years?

Mr. SAMUEL: Statistics of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank on which no transactions have taken place for 10 years could only be obtained by an analysis of some 10,000,000 accounts. I do not think that the cost of this analysis would be justified. Moreover, it would be impossible to take as the test of an unclaimed deposit the fact that no application has been made for 10 years. Applications are frequently received after much longer intervals.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state in what way or by what Department this interest is being used?

Mr. SAMUEL: All these matters are dealt with by the Post Office, and I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address a question to that Department.

Mr. THORNE: Do I understand that the Postmaster-General pinches all the interest on this money?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware that the Postmaster-General pinches anything.

ROBBERIES (INSURANCE.)

Mr. FORREST: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether there is any scheme of insurance, and, if so, what, against robberies from post offices during hours when the premises are closed for business?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer is in the negative.

TELEPHONE OPERATORS, HANLEY.

Mr. MacLAREN: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General the hours during which the telephone operators, women and girls, are expected to remain on duty at the Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, automatic telephone exchange?

Sir W. MITCHELL- THOMSON: Female telephonists at the Hanley exchange are employed normally only at hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., but occasionally, in consequence of a temporary shortage of male night staff, their attendance has been extended on overtime up to 10 p.m. I am making inquiry to see whether these occasional late attendances can be obviated.

Mr. MacLAREN: Has the Postmaster-General received notice that some of these girls have been subject to hysterical fits as the result of these long hours?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, I have not.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDITS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a great portion of land in this country needs lime and that farmers are at present unable to meet the cost of liming their land; and whether, as lime furnishes a sound basis of credit, the unexhausted value of lime in the land being deemed a tenant-right, he will consider the desirability of arranging for credits to farmers in respect of money expended by them in liming their land

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware that
much agricultural land would benefit by proper liming. The question of including tenant-right as an asset upon which loans might be secured is being considered in connection with the proposed Bill dealing with agricultural credit.

SMALL HOLDINGS (FORESTRY COMMISSION).

Mr. HURD: 42.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what are the numbers and character of small holdings created and about to be created by the Commissioners; and if he will consider by what means this method of increasing the number of small cultivators can be extended?

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): Since the scheme was initiated in August, 1924, the Forestry Commissioners have completed 393 forest workers' holdings, and 212 more are in progress. The workers are provided with dwelling-house and outbuildings, and up to 10 acres of land to be used for growing fruit or other crops, or for keeping cows, poultry, pigs, goats and bees. The number of holdings which can be formed is mainly dependent on two factors: the Commission's planting programme, which governs the amount of work which can be provided for the holders, and the amount of money provided for the purpose.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether any means are being adopted to extend this class of small holdings?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: The Forestry Commission have placed their views before the Government, and they will be considered.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department considered the advisability of providing small holdings on a large scale for unemployed miners who have come from rural areas and are expert in land cultivation?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: We are dealing with forest workers only, and we cannot establish holdings for more forest workers than those for whom we can find work.

Mr. JONES: Is there not sufficient land in the country to occupy every unemployed miner on the land?

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 40.
asked the Treasurer of the Household whether he is aware that James Cottam, 104, Albert Street, Newton, Wigan, who is completely disabled owing to injuries received while serving with the Royal Army Medical Corps in France, and whose case was brought to his notice in February, 1927, has since had his case submitted to the pensions appeal tribunal, who have disallowed his claim; that he has lost the sight of his right eye and the sight of his left eye is affected; that he is suffering from neuritis and wastage of the lower limbs; that this condition is certified by medical practitioners to be directly caused by being blown up during his Army service in France; and that this man and his family are chargeable to the board of guardians; and if he will have this case re-opened with a view to a pension being granted?

Major COPE (Controller of the Household): I have made inquiries on this matter from the Lord Chancellor. The decisions of the pensions appeal tribunals are by Statute final, and the Lord Chancellor has no power to revise them or to reopen the matter.

DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES.

Mr. TOMLINSON: 41.
asked the Attorney-General if he is now in a position to state definitely when the Bill dealing with the district probate registries will be introuduced?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): No, Sir. I hope that the Bill may be introduced shortly, but I am not in a position to name any date at present.

CABLE AND WIRELESS COM- MUNICATIONS.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MALONE:

48. To ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to transfer any Government cable or wireless services to a private company; and, if so, whether he will give particulars?

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I have been asked again to postpone this Question.
May I ask the Postmaster-General what is the difficulty in giving an answer to this very simple question?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It has nothing to do with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Mr. TINKER: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons receiving pensions because of their work in the diplomatic service; and the average amount paid and the highest and lowest pension?

Mr. SAMUEL: The number is 44; the average amount paid is £1,093 1s. 1d. per annum; the highest pension is £1,700, and the lowest £400.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman what is the total that is paid to all of these retired members of the Diplomatic Service?

Mr. SAMUEL: Obviously, I should have to ask for notice of that question.

CIVIL SERVICE WHITLEY COUNCILS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the desirability of re-framing the Regulations under which the Whitley Councils of the Civil Service are constituted by providing that only persons actually engaged in the service of the Crown shall be eligible to represent their colleagues on the council?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is not proposed to make any alteration in the existing practice, under which the selection of members of the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council is left to the various groups and associations concerned.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the present members of the Council have no connection with the Civil Service, and are mixed up with the trade union organisation, whereas Civil Service employés are not allowed to be affiliated with trade unions?

Mr. AMMON: Is it not the fact that recent legislation debarred these people from being associated with outside trade union organisations?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware that there was some discussion in regard to that matter on the Trade Disputes Bill.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONTRACTS).

Mr. GILLETT: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, during the 11 months ending 29th February, 1928, any contracts were entered into by the Ministry for amounts over £20,000 without such contracts being submitted to public tender; and, if so, if he will state the number and the amount of money involved?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer is 56 contracts, involving approximately £3,450,000.

Mr. GILLETT: Are we to take it that the reason for this large sum is that the payments have to be made to one firm only, because there are no other firms who can do the work?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is a question of proprietary designs.

OTTOMAN LOAN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
(for Colonel WEDGWOOD) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that payments made to foreigners by the Bank of England on the coupons of the Ottoman Loan of 1855 are always accompanied by affidavits giving the owner's name and address to avoid British Income Tax; and why, therefore, he cannot distinguish French from English and leave their own Government to meet their own obligations to Frenchmen?

Mr. SAMUEL: The declarations or affidavits referred to by the hon. and gallant Member cover a negligible proportion of the payments. The total dividend paid last February was £76,000 and the amount paid free of tax on the basis of a declaration of residence in France was £302.

COMMONWEALTH TRUST, LTD.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the directors of the Commonwealth Trust informed the shareholders in the notices convening the annual meeting that they understood that a proposal for the allotment of £2,500 to missions would be made, and that the directors not only intimated in advance
their sympathetic support but also that they had been assured that there was no legal objection to the shareholders adopting this procedure; whether he is aware that it was only upon these assurances that the sum in question was not opposed; and whether these assurances had been given by his Department?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): My attention was called to this proposal by the Commonwealth Trust, who were invited to explain it. On receipt of their explanation they were informed that in my opinion it was open to serious objection and that I hoped it would be abandoned. I have since been informed that they are placing the sum to a suspense account for the present. It follows that no assurance whatever has been given by me on this subject.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (FLATS, FINSBURY).

Mr. GILLETT: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of flats it is proposed to build in Finsbury for the married men in the Metropolitan police force; what number of these flats are three, four and five rooms, respectively; and what is the estimated cost of the land and of the buildings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): This block will contain 96 flats, with living room, kitchen-scullery and bathroom: 68 of the flats will have three bedrooms and 28 two bedrooms. The site is held on a 200-year lease, and the cost of preparing the site and erecting and equipping the building is expected to be about £95,000.

FIRES, LONDON COUNTY (INQUESTS).

Mr. GILLETT: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an inquest in reference to the death from burns of a man at 43, Gee Street, Finsbury, when it was stated that 18 persons were living in a house with no roof exits; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in regard to the suggestion of the jury that the
City of London Fire Inquests Acts be extended to the administrative County of London?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The suggestion made by the jury was brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend but he does not propose to take any action on it as it is quite contrary to the recommendation made on the matter, after full consideration, by the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades and Fire Prevention.

Mr. GILLETT: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman consulted with the London County Council at all on the matter?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The Royal Commission on Fire Prevention took full evidence on this question from Dr. Waldo and from the London County Council, and they decided that it was not desirable to extend the Act in the way the hon. Member suggests.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Mr. NAYLOR: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give particulars showing to what extent county councils and sanitary authorities in England and Wales have availed themselves of the powers given them under the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act to take proceedings and to pass bye-laws respecting smoke abatement.

Sir K. WOOD: Bye-laws respecting the emission of smoke have been made by 14 local authorities and confirmed. I have no particulars as to the extent to which local authorities generally have taken proceedings, but a good deal of useful work is being done.

Mr. NAYLOR: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether as the result of his circular to county councils and sanitary authorities drawing their attention to the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926, any regional committees, with either executive or advisory functions, have been formed?

Sir K. WOOD: Two Regional Advisory Committees and one Executive Committee have been set up since the issue of the circular, in addition to two Advisory Committees previously appointed. A Committee has also been appointed by a conference of representatives of local authorities to report on questions of smoke abatement in the Greater London area.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Will my hon. Friend represent to local authorities that they would be better employed in reducing rates and so encouraging the pretion of smoke?

TOWN PLANNING SCHEME, HULL.

Mr. LUMLEY: 62.
asked the Minister of Health if his sanction has been sought for additions to the Hull Town Planning Scheme (North-East Hull and Sutton); and, if so, whether he will cause a decision to be made with as little delay as possible, so that private builders can continue their activity without fear of infringing the provisions of the scheme?

Sir K. WOOD: Preliminary suggestions have been made to my right hon. Friend but he has not at present received any formal proposals in the matter. My right hon. Friend will see that any proposals that are made are considered as promptly as possible.

POOR LAW RELIEF, EAST LONDON.

Mr. LANSBURY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in the unions of Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, and St. George's-in-the-East, on Saturday, 2nd August, 1914; and the number in receipt of outdoor relief in the same unions on the same Saturday in August, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924?

Sir K. WOOD: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Persons in receipt if Domiciliary Poor-law Relief (excluding casuals and persons in receipt of medical relief only).


Number on the first Saturday in August.
Whitechapel.
Bethnal Green.
St. George in-the East.


1914
…
…
12
192
16


1919*
…
…
7
91
65


1920
…
…
7
198
229


1921
…
…
13
4,427
752


1922
…
…
448
5,457
1,828


1923
…
…
1,314
6,742
5,308


1924
…
…
1,276
5,472
2,673


*The figures relate to the last Saturday in July—figures for the first Saturday in August wore not obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

COTTON TRADE.

Mr. KELLY: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as unemployed cotton-trade workers in December, 1927, and January and February, 1928?

NUMBER of insured men and women classified as belonging to the cotton industry in Great Britain, recorded as unemployed.




Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.


Date.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.


19th December, 1927
…
8,089
10,470
11,644
24,571
19,733
35,221


23rd January, 1928*
…
8,254
10,783
10,300
23,483
18,554
34,266


20th February, 1928*
…
9,107
10,847
8,016
19,508
17,123
30,355


*Figures relate to persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive.

CHINA CLAY INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workpeople registered as employed in the china clay industry.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines, that the number of persons employed in and about china clay quarries in 1926 was about 4,700. The unemployment insurance statistics do not distinguish this industry separately from other forms of clay digging and stone crushing.

EAST LONDON.

Mr. LANSBURY: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons not

A.—Number of Claims to Unemployment Benefit admitted and under consideration at the Stratford, Hackney and Poplar Employment Exchanges on each Monday of February, 1928.


Exchange.
Date.
Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.





1928.







Stratford
…
…
6th February
…
…
2,088
52
543
28
2,711





13th"
…
…
2,068
46
559
24
2,697





20th"
…
…
2,062
42
532
18
2,654





27th"
…
…
2,064
42
525
21
2,652


Hackney
…
…
6th"
…
…
3,017
56
970
43
4,086





13th"
…
…
2,966
59
1,006
43
4,074





20th"
…
…
2,999
40
915
34
3,988





27th"
…
…
2,869
60
847
36
3,812


Poplar
…
…
6th"
…
…
3,040
5
432
33
3,510





13th"
…
…
3,195
1
421
24
3,641





20th"
…
…
3,181
1
447
32
3,661





27th"
…
…
3,202
2
431
28
3,663

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel Maitland): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

receiving unemployment pay were sent to vacancies notified by the Employment Exchanges at Stratford, Hackney, and Poplar; the number of persons receiving unemployment benefit; and the total number of vacancies notified during the month of February last?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics are not available of the number of persons actually in receipt of benefit, nor of the number of persons not in receipt of benefit who are sent to vacancies. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such figures as are available.

Following are the figures:

B.—Number of Vacancies notified to the Stratford, Hackey and Popular Employment Exchanges during February, 1928.


Exchange.
Week ending.
Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.





1928.







Stratford
…
…
6th February
…
…
22
6
25>
24
77





13th"
…
…
41
14
25
26
106





20th"
…
…
29
17
26
11
83





27th"
…
…
46
19
41
22
128


Hackney
…
…
6th"
…
…
40
33
80
29
182





13th"
…
…
58
83
84
38
263





20th"
…
…
76
49
99
32
256





27th"
…
…
38
39
78
39
194


Poplar
…
…
6th"
…
…
93
28
20
54
195





13th"
…
…
59
21
10
33
123





20th"
…
…
134
29
12
29
204





27th"
…
…
32
38
22
19
111

Mr. LANSBURY: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at East London Employment Exchanges it is impossible for persons not in receipt of unemployment pay to obtain any chance of securing the opportunity to apply for vacancies notified to the Exchanges; that persons in receipt of Poor Law relief are thus entirely barred from receiving any advantage from the Employment Exchange; whether any verbal or written instructions have been given to officials at the Exchanges that preference is to be given to persons drawing unemployment pay over those whose claims to benefit. have expired; and, if this is the case, what does he propose shall be done for the men and women thus denied all opportunity of finding work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no instruction that preference should be given to any person on the ground that he is claiming or in receipt of benefit. The practice in these as in other Exchanges is to submit the applicant who is industrially best qualified to fill the vacancy.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the East End it is absolutely impossible for a man or woman not in receipt of unemployment pay to get an opportunity of applying for one of these vacancies, and will he make special inquiries as to the truth of my statement?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly make inquiries and see what there is in it.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED (RHONDDA VALLEY).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 68.
(for Mr. JOHN) asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants in the Rhondda Valley who have been refused benefit from January, 1927, to January, 1928, after a rota committee has recommended that benefit should be granted?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the period of 12 months ended 16th January, 1928, out of 86,436 cases in which the Local Employment Committees in the Rhondda Valley recommended allowance of extended benefit, 1,032 were disallowed.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the main reason for the disallowing of these cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not without notice.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS -MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that they are all miners in that district?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not all.

EXTENDED BENEFIT (TONYPANDY AND MARDY).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 69.
(for Mr. JOHN) asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons that applied for extended benefit in each month from January, 1927, to January, 1928, at the Tonypandy and Mardy Exchanges; and the number of cases in which benefit was refused?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the information regarding Tonypandy (including Tonyrefail) involves a considerable
number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Separate statistics are not available for Mardy, but if the hon. Member so desires I can give him the figures for Ferndale, under which Mardy is included.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS- MORGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us

APPLICATIONS for EXTENDED BENEFIT considered by the Local Employment Committtees at Tonypandy and Tonyrefail during the twelve months ended 16th January, 1928.




Applications recommended for


Period
Applications considered.*
Allowance.
Disallowance.


11th January to 14th February, 1927
2,720
2,673
47


15th February to 14th March, 1927
1,834
1,792
42


15th March to 11th April, 1927
2,262
2,192
70


12th April to 9th May, 1927
2,016
1,989
27


10th May to 13th June, 1927
2,442
2,393
49


14th June to 11th July, 1927
2,663
2,619
44


12th July to 8th August, 1927
1,665
1,646
19


9th August to 12th September, 1927
3,534
3,479
55


13th September to 10th October, 1927
2,437
2,391
46


11th October to 14th November, 1927
4,329
4,072
257


15th November to 12th December, 1927
2,765
2,742
23


13th December, 1927 to 16th January, 1928
3,730
3,592
138


*Statistics of the number of separate individuals respresented by these applications are not available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Proceedings on Reports of Supply of the 8th and 12th March may be taken after Eleven of the

the figures with regard to the number of refusals in each case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down, I will give the figures, but it was not included in the original question.

Following is the statement:

Clock, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Amery.]

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 117.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[3.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd'., Hexham)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Apsley, Lord
Buckingham, Sir H.
Drewe. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Eden, Captain Anthony


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
England, Colonel A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Berry, sir George
Christle, J. A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bethel, A.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Clayton, G. C.
Fermoy, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fielden, E. B.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cooper, A. Duff
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cope, Major William
Forrest, W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Couper, J. B.
Fraser, Captain lan


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Briggs, J. Harold
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Ganzonl, Sir John


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crookshank,Col.H,(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Grace, John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lumley, L. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macmillan, Captain H.
Skelton, A. N.


Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hamilton, Sir George
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Margesson, Captain D.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
MarNott, Sir J. A. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meller, R. J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Henderson,Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser 


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hills, Major John Waller
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hilton, Cecil
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Murchison. Sir Kenneth
Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Holt, Captain H. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nuttall, Ellis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Penny, Frederick George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perring, Sir William George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Huntingfield, Lord
Pilcher, G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hurd, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Preston, William
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, Sir Walter
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ramsden, E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Remnant, Sir James
Womersley, W. J


Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillip
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir. Kingsley


Lioyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Loder. J. de V.
Ropner, Major L.



Long, Major Eric
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gosling, Harry
Mackinder, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenall, T.
March, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baker, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Murnin, H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillary)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A.
Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromfield, William
Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cove. W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherbithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Day, Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford. T. W.


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Fenby, T. D.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gardner, J. P.
Livingstone, A. M
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Glbbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.




Townend, A. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Varley, Frank B.
Westwood, J.
Windsor, Walter


Viant. S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wright, W.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, C. P. (Denblgh, Wrexham)



Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley Whiteley


First Resolution read a Second time.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend the Licensing Acts, 1910 and 1921; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Colonel Gretton; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

PUBLIC MEETING ACT (1908) AMENDMENT.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pubic Meeting Act (1908) by extending its operations to meetings held during an election for local government office."
The object of the Bill is to extend to meetings held in the course of municipal elections the same statutory protection against organized disturbance which is now enjoyed by meetings held in the course of Parliamentary elections. The Public Meeting Act, 1908, imposes penalties on persons who at a lawful public meeting act in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called. That provision applies to all sorts of public meetings, but there is an additional provision in the Act of 1908 which makes it an illegal practice to organise the break-up of a meeting held at a Parliamentary election. That provision does not extend to municipal elections, and I submit that exactly the same principle which secures a public meeting during a Parliamentary election from organised disturbance ought to safeguard meetings held in support of municipal candidatures.
The principle at the root of this Bill is the right of anybody to say what he will, and the right of an audience to hear what any candidate has to say. Nobody suggests that the Act of 1908 should be repealed; the object of the Bill is merely to extend the same protection to municipal meetings which is given by that Act to Parliamentary election meetings. It is the common experience of the industrial north, that there is just as much organised violence and disturbance at municipal elections as there is at Parliamentary

mentary elections. In recent times, it has been almost impossible to hold a meeting in decent peace and order in many parts of the industrial north. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true!"] It is perfectly true in my own experience in the Manchester and Salford area. What with the shouting, the screaming and the singing of the "Red Flag" you cannot say what you want to say. [Interruption.] However unpopular what you want to say may be or however foolish it may be, the candidate has a right to say what he wishes to say, and the audience has a right to hear what he has to say. No party admits itself to be responsible for interruptions of this sort. If you hold a meeting and interruption takes place and you blame the Socialists, the Socialists will blame the Communists; the Communists will disclaim all liability and will say, perhaps, that it is the Anarchists, and no doubt the Anarchists will put it down to that nebulous and elusive body, the League of Young Liberals.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Having had experience of two of the parties mentioned, may I ask the hon. Member if he is aware that many meetings have been broken up by Conservatives, old and young?

Mr. HURST: This Bill is no respecter of parties. It applies to all parties, in the common interest of freedom of speech and freedom of public meeting. There is nothing in this Bill which in any way affects or impinges upon the ancient and honourable art of heckling. There is nothing in the Bill that will in any way interfere with the right of the anxious antiquarian who wants to know what Mr. Gladstone said in 1885, nor is there anything in it to interfere with the curiosity of the ill-informed cynic who wants to know what the Government has done for the working man. These people can ask their old questions and they will get the old replies. All that the Bill does, is to give the same protection to meetings held during municipal elections from deliberate and calculated breaking-up or
disturbance, very often by bodies entirely remote from the constituency where such disturbance takes place.

Mr. MacLAREN: Is there any provision in the Bill to compel a candidate to answer a question when it is asked?

Mr. HURST: There is nothing to that effect in the Bill, but no doubt the hon. Member, if he puts a question, will get the same satisfactory and succinct replies from candidates which he usually gets from Conservative platforms. Whether he will get the same shortness and clearness in an answer from the other side, is a matter which I will not argue. The Bill simply aims at preserving the right of all candidates to say what they like and the right of audiences to hear any and every candidate, whether they speak wisely or foolishly. It preserves the ancient right of an elector in this country to hear what your candidate wishes to say.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Hurst, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White, Dr. Watts, Mr. A,. R. Kennedy, Sir Joseph Nall, Mr. Gates, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hilton, and Sir Robert Bird.

PUBLIC MEETING ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Public Meeting Act, 1908, by extending its operation to meetings held during an election for local government office, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th April, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

OFFICES REGULATION.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to regulate offices and the employment of young persons therein; and for other purposes connected therewith.
I hope the House will be as kind and indulgent to me as it has been to my predecessor this afternoon, and will give me the same ready First Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill for the regulation of offices, and seeks to extend to people who work in offices some of the protection that is at present given to those who work in factories. It is not often that offices are
protected in the same way as factories and workshops, because it is generally assumed that working in an office is a healthy occupation. The conditions in many big cities, especially owing to the great congestion at the present time, are rapidly growing worse, and it is felt that something ought to be done to protect the health of the men and women who work in these offices. The House will, before long, extend the franchise to all women between the ages of 21 and 30, and if this Bill were passed, it would be an indication that the House proposes to do something for the new voters, for many thousands of the new voters would be protected by a Bill of this kind.
There are several main evils under which these people work at the present time. First and foremost, there is electric light. Many workers have to work in offices with artificial light, not only on dark days but all day and every day and right through the heat of summer. This is not only the case in regard to, old buildings, but it applies also to new buildings. In one of the best and newest offices lately built in the city of London, large provision is made for underground office accommodation. In the older buildings in the city, where girls work underground, conditions are very bad indeed. We have also in these basement offices, the enemy of damp. In one office which was brought to my notice, there was not only one storey of the office underground but two. The occupier of the office had originally kept his records and papers in one of the offices underground, and the girls worked in the other. He found that his records and books became mildewed and he removed them to the upper office and the girls had to work in the other office. When I interviewed him, as a trade union official, he asked me what he could do, because he could not get any other office where the-girls could work.
The effect on health is particularly bad at the present time, because many of these girls work very long hours and work special overtime at quarter days. I should like to quote the case of a girl who wrote to me, giving me a description of the office in which she worked. She said:
It is only a cubicle, with no windows and no ventilation, and five men besides myself work in this unhealthy place.
She added that the electric light had had a bad effect on her eyes, and she had been obliged to go and see an oculist, who said that her eyes were badly strained. One-third of the diseases of those who work in offices is due to phthisis, and 122 out of every 1,000 die by diseases which are caused by working in cramped spaces with bad light, bad ventilation, and very long hours. The Bill recognises the difficulty which many employers work under at the present time. High rents are making overcrowding worse, and one employer whom I interviewed said that many of them would welcome some legislative action. The Bill throws the burden of keeping the offices in a proper condition on to the owner, but makes provision for adjustment afterwards by the council. This Bill would prevent overcrowding; it would stop any premises being used as underground offices which were not so used on the date when the Bill passes into law, and, briefly, it makes provision for adequate ventilation, lighting and heating, and proper sanitary accommodation. The question of sanitary accommodation in some city offices is very pressing. The conditions are terrible, and when girls have to work under such conditions it is time this House extended to them the provisions which for so many years it has extended to girls who work in factories.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Wilkinson, Miss Bondfield, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. William Graham, Dr. Dalton, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Montague, and Mr. Robert Wilson.

OFFICES REGULATION BILL,

"to regulate offices and the employment of young persons therein; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

EXETER CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (SWANSEA NORTH DOCK ABANDONMENT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir Arthur Churchman reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, 28th March, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they bad discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Captain Hudson; and had appointed in substitution: Sir George Jones.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Amendments to—

Protection of Lapwings Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

Orders of the Day — [REPORT [8TH MARCH.]

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1928.

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 153,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

2."That a sum, not exceeding £9,023,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

3."That a sum, not exceeding £3,040,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

4."That a sum, not exceeding £3,580,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

5."That a sum, not exceeding £4,329,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of OutPensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Noneffective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

6."That a sum, not exceeding £232,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "153,500," and to insert instead therefor "153,400."

Mr. LAWSON: For the purposes of our discussion, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I understand that if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) moves his reduction, we are limited to a
discussion upon the number of men, and I was wondering whether you would allow a general Debate to take place on this Vote on the understanding that the Debate concluded at a reasonable time?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is the Report stage of the Supply Vote, and, according to the Rules of the House, the Debate ought to be confined strictly to each individual Vote as it comes up. I have been approached on this matter, and, in view of the fact that the time in the Committee stage on Vote A was limited, I think it would be fair to allow the House to have a more or less general discussion on the Vote, although it is the Report stage. In order to protect. myself against an abuse of this liberty, I have consulted hon. Members, and I understand that they have readily given me an assurance that they will not abuse the liberty if I take this course.

Mr. LAWSON: I take it that hon. Members can raise any question relevant to this particular Vote, although the hon. and gallant Member moves to reduce the number of men?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, it makes this Debate as wide as is usually the case on Vote A in Committee.

4.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that what you have said entirely meets my own requirements. I very rarely trouble the House on questions connected with the Army. I never venture to impinge on Army Debates or discuss the economy of the Service or the technicalities of the Army. I speak with great diffidence. The reason I am moving the reduction to-day is to draw attention to a matter which has been lost sight of by the House and the public, and I am afraid by the War Office itself; and that is the small British Army, very well staffed, that is stationed somewhere in Germany, I believe at a place called Weisbaden. From personal observation and conversations when I was in Cologne after the Armistice, when it was occupied by a larger Army, I found everywhere, without exception, high praise for the conduct and bearing of all ranks of His Majesty's Army. The British soldier, whether he is a private or an officer, when engaged in the difficult and delicate task of occupying former enemy
territory behaves as a gentleman. In my own personal opinion the bravest feat of arms during the whole War was when the Earl of Cavan, who was in command of the British Army in Italy, sent a trainload of food through to the starving Austrians in face of the objection of certain Allies immediately the Armistice was signed. Having said that, I must point out that the position of this Army in Germany is difficult and dangerous. It is now 10 years after the Armistice and we are still keeping this small and inadequate army of some thousands of men in the Rhineland, in the middle of purely German territory.
I have certain questions to ask the Secretary of State for War about it. First, with regard to its numbers. I find in the Army Estimates that the total number is given as 7,252 men, and it consists of a number of very famous regiments. I believe they are still roughly as follow; the 8th Hussars, the 2nd Royal Welsh Fusiliers—I do not notice any cheers from Welsh Members—the 2nd Worcesters, the 2nd Berkshires, the 2nd Royal Fusiliers, the 2nd Leicesters and the 2nd Dorsets. There are certain other units—Artillery, Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Medical Corps, Army Dental Corps, Army Ordnance Corps, Army Veterinary Corps, 10 chaplains, nine officers and 39 men of the Army Pay Corps. Then there is a section of the Army Educational Corps. I am glad to say that there are no Colonial or Indian troops. All the troops, at any rate, are white men. That wa are not employing coloured troops there is, I think, all to the good. There are some batteries of Royal Artillery, some Royal Engineers and members of the Royal Corps of Signals and 143 military police.
I do not pretend to be any sort of a military expert, but the principles of strategy, as I have said before in this House, are of very wide application, and they do not change. I would ask, therefore, what on earth is the use of an army of two weak brigades in the middle of a nation of 60,000,000 people, a nation which is allowed, under the Peace Treaty, 100,000 troops, and which has millions of trained men of good military value, as we know? For military purposes, that army is useless, and, from a strategical point of view, is in a most dangerous
position. It ought either to be a proper army of sufficient size for its work, or it should be withdrawn altogether. I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's personal views are on this matter. But while the Army is small, the staff is terrific. There is one cavalry regiment and some horse artillery units, and yet there are 17 remount officers. Do they buy horses locally? Do they have any system of farming out horses? Do they subsidise German light horses as we subsidise horses in this country suitable for cavalry? Why 17 remount officers?
Now compare the cost of this staff with that of the Home Commands. For Aldershot, the principal military command in this country, the cost is £46,400, and for the Eastern Command £41,400; while for the Army on the Rhine it is £31,750. For the large Northern Command it is only £23,600. I think that the staff on the Rhine is out of all proportion to the size of the Army, and I suspect that, as usual, the War Office is looking after officers of high rank, and especially staff officers. There are in the Army, as we know, two orders of human beings—staff officers and others, and, whatever happens, the numbers of the staff and their emoluments must not be altered. That is all very well from the point of view of the staff, but I am also thinking of the British taxpayer. Do not let any hon. Member say that the Germans are paying for this, because if he does, I would ask him to remember the two following points. In the first place, every penny Germany pays towards the cost of this Army is deducted from the reparation payments to the Exchequer, and the second thing is that the Germans are not paying. The Appropriations-in-Aid amount to £1,000,000 this year—"Receipts in connection with the Army of Occupation on the Rhine." I can only go by the Army List, and I can only find £1,000,000 mentioned, whereas last year the amount allowed was £l,500,000.
When I come to the cost of this Army, I find that the amount given in the Army Estimates is £1,299,700. So that even if the Germans pay the full £1,000,000, we lose £299,000, but, as I remarked before, every penny comes off the main reparations payment. But that is not all, because I have here the Minutes of the Evidence taken by the
Select Committee of Public Accounts for the year 1927. My hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for War was good enough to draw my attention to this, and I thank him very much, because I find here an extraordinary state of affairs. If hon. Members will look at page 532 of the 1927 Report they will find that there was continual bickering, trouble and friction about getting any money out of Germany at all. The machinery was very complicated owing to the right of appeal to the International Tribunal, presided over by a Dutchman, M. Patin, and, in actual practice, in 1925, according to this evidence, we only got £407,000. This is the sort of thing that happens. This is the evidence given by a prominent official called before the Committee. The hon. Member who was present will remember this evidence very well. After some details about belated charges, and so on, this is the description given of the difficulties:
The German Government succeeded in getting a provisional allowance from the Reparation Receipts Office, so that there was no inducement from their point of view to put in their bill within a particular time. The Army cannot Move until they get the bill. When they get the bill they dispute a good many of the items. If those disputes cannot be settled between the two High Commissioners, they have to go to the Arbitral Commission presided over by M. Patijn. That takes up a great deal of time.
The result is that there is obstruction, and the unfortunate Army Paymasters, or whoever do these things, are shuttlecocked and battle-dored between the various Commissions and authorities, the result being that we do not get the full amount we should have, and the evidence given was that the British taxpayer has to bear the cost, "in the sense that it is taken away from the annuity." What is clear is that we do not get anything like £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, and this year we get a little under £500,000. The same Committee asked about the size of the garrison, and this is where I make my next question to the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Ellis asked:
Were we bound to keep a definite number of men on the Rhine by Treaty, or is it within our power to reduce the number?
This is the interesting answer given:
I think there is a definite maximum, but the general attitude of the Government is that all three occupying States should reduce pro rata.
That means that we shall not keep more than a certain number of men, but we can reduce the Army as much as we like, and, that being the case, if I am right in saying that for military purposes this Army of 7,000 odd, or whatever the numbers are, is useless, then for political purposes it ought to be very much less, and you could have one brigade instead of two brigades; you could have a battalion, a company, a consular guard, and there would be all that saving to the taxpayers of this country. There would be the extra amount accruing on Reparation account, and there would be avoided this otherwise unavoidable friction, annoyance and irritation caused to any people who have alien troops quartered upon them, however well those troops behave, and I pay a well-deserved tribute to the good behaviour and good bearing of the troops. But so long as you have that Army of Occupation, there is that feeling, and it is, of course, a degradation to the people who own the territory that they occupy. Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman cannot take this Army away altogether, I think he should reduce it still further.
I want to ask another question. What is the effect of the life which is led by this lost legion at Wiesbaden. I say "lost legion" because we hear nothing about it. It has been there for 10 years. What is it doing? When is it coming away? What is the effect on military efficiency? Is it possible to manœuvre the troops to give them the requisite training? How many live in billets and how many in barracks? Are they occupying old German barracks or are they billeted? Troops billeted for a long time, my military friends tell me, lose part of their military efficiency and discipline. I can well understand it. I believe they get on so well with the civil population that many marriages are taking place between the young British soldiers and the young German women. [An HON. MEMBER: "It brings peace!"] My hon. Friend says that it bring peace. It does not always bring peace, but I hope these marriages are happy. If so, it will be because of the excellent domestic virtues of the German women. Think of the position. One day, when the soldiers return, these young women will come among strange people, and, if their husbands retire from the Army, will live in Wigan, in Ipswich, Birmingham, or
wherever it may be, surrounded by people who do not speak their language and away from their own people. Marriages, I know, are made in Heaven, but I do not see why a temporary Heaven in Rhineland or Wiesbaden should be turned into domestic discomfort.

Mr. SPEAKER: Are these ladies carried on the Vote?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, they are. They marry on the strength, and they receive the allowance that we vote in this House for them, but I dare say when they retire with their soldier husbands they do not receive it, and I do not want to pursue that. But I would rather see these young soldiers in England brought into contact with English girls and marrying English girls. There is in this country a great surplus of women who can never get husbands. That is well known. You cannot kill a million men and keep the balance between the two sexes, and many of this generation of English women will be deprived of their domestic opportunities. Is it not a, fact that some hundreds of these marriages have taken place on the strength? What is the exact number? I am told it is very considerable. I do not object to the marriages themselves, because they show that the relations between the troops and the civil population are good, but I have mentioned another aspect of the matter. This is one of the things that will inevitably happen if you keep the Army there indefinitely. How long is it going to be there?
I do not wish to touch on matters of high policy, but I hope the Secretary of State for War is using his great eloquence and influence in the Cabinet in favour of having this Army taken away from the Rhine at the earliest possible moment. In my opinion it has been there many years too long and I can see no advantages at all in keeping it there. It is bound to cause heartburnings and ill-feeling among a people who are members of the League of Nations with ourselves, and are parties, with us, to the Locarno Treaty. We were told that that Treaty opened up a new chapter in European relations and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs got the Order of the Garter for it. Why, then, is this force still kept on German territory? As a
bulwark against invasion by France it is worse than useless. I say—with diffidence from the military point of view, but with certainty from the political point of view and from the point of view of good faith and fair dealing—that this Army ought not to be kept on the Rhine any longer.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I trust the Secretary of State for War will give the House some reasons for keeping this Army on the Rhine. Why should it be necessary to do so after all these years since the Armistice? We have been told that peace now prevails between the various countries, but the existence of such a force as this would make it appear that only an armed peace exists between the nations, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will try to make this House and the people of the country understand why they are being called upon to maintain an Army in that part of the world. I leave that question for the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand that by your ruling, Sir, we are enabled to raise a number of other points on this occasion. There are many points in these Estimates which require clearing up by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. It is not a far stretch from the question of the army of occupation on the Rhine to the question of the conditions operating in various Departments under the control of the War Office. I do not know whether the term "army of occupation" is still applied to the Army on the Rhine but, if so, it seems strange, in view of the fact that that Army is in a land with whose people we are supposed to be at peace.
If one comes a little nearer home than the Rhine, one wonders why the War Department cannot treat the workers in its factories much better than it is doing at present. I am told that, at the Pimlico Clothing Factory, the wages, though not regulated by the trade board, are paid at a figure which is round about that operating under the trade board for industries of a similar nature outside. These trade boards are, presumably, set up to deal with sweated occupations, and I am told that the War Department refuses even to comply with the rates existing under this particular trade board.
I quote but one case in reference to that factory. I am told that the War Department refused to pay to the warehousemen there the rate of wages which would be paid by outside employers and that they have changed the title of this class of workpeople, calling them "porters" instead of "warehousemen." I suggest that that is a poor way of getting behind the operation of the Trade Boards Act. While mentioning that particular case, I ask the War Department to look into the conditions generally operating in their factories and to endeavour to remove some of the difficulties and grievances of which one hears.
I wish to refer again to a question which I raised this afternoon concerning Singapore. I know the difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that his Department have not the figures as to the number of people employed on War Office work in that place, but surely, if the Department are employing civilians on this work—which so many of us think is unnecessary and wasteful—they ought to know the number of people for whom they are responsible at Singapore. Surely, also, they ought to be able to tell us of the conditions under which these people work. We hear rumours of a very unsettling kind, to the effect that these people who are either directly engaged by the War Office, or are engaged by a contractor who is doing War Office work, are living and working under conditions which are a disgrace to this country. It is bad enough when our people in this country are treated in a way of which we have reason to complain, but, in Malaya, the War Department should remember that they are responsible for the good name of this country. We expect the War Department to show a standard that will be an example to other people in that part of the world. We might also have an explanation of why such a large sum of money is being expended at Singapore. The original sum was something like £685,000. I wonder if the people of this country realise that during the year which will end 31st March next we have expended £30,000 and have arranged for the expenditure of a further £132,000. We ought to be told on what this money is being spent. There are other items in the Estimates regarding
quarters and so forth about which the House and the country ought to know more.
In regard to the Stores Department, I am not at all sure that the Department itself is satisfied with the allocation of the various stores, particularly in view of the mechanisation of the Army. I am not at all convinced that these stores are placed in the best way, having regard to the conditions under which the Army operates. As to the conditions of those employed in the Stores Department, I would ask when are we going to have complete housing for those engaged at Didcot? A considerable sum of money was set aside for that purpose, and some of us who were on a committee dealing with the matter were given assurances that the housing arrangements would be expedited. When are these houses going to be completed, so that those engaged at Didcot may have home conditions worthy of the name? I should also like to know the reason for the considerable expenditure at Feltham. I see that we are going to spend something like £25,000 on new buildings at a place where we have already spent a considerable sum in the erection of workshops. I know that those workshops were erected because of the new condition of things in the Army. Why is it necessary to spend the further £25,000 which is in this Estimate?
With regard to Bramley, I was left under the impression by speeches from representatives of the War Department that they had great regard for the education of those in their service. We have been led to believe that the Department is very anxious for improvement and education, but I am told that a very curious thing has happened at Bramley. A certain number of the employés there desired to attend classes and, in order to prove that they were genuine in their desire for education, they proposed to sit for certain examinations. The War Department took exception both to their attendance at the classes and to their sitting at the examinations. I hope we shall have an explanation of this curious procedure. I observe that the amount under the heading of "Compassionate Gratuities" is reduced and one would like to have some explanation of this fact. I would also like to know why the War Department
are dispensing with the services of pensionable civilians before the time comes for these civilians to receive pensions. I am sorry to put so many points, but there are a great many others with which I should like to deal. There are one or two matters affecting the Stores Department, which I have not mentioned in detail, but I trust that if the Financial Secretary is replying he will tell the House something about this Department and particularly the points which I have raised. Apart from these questions of detail I hope the country will learn that we are going to be eased from the burden of maintaining a wholly unnecessary army on the Rhine—a burden which falls upon the people of the country, whether the cost comes directly out of their pockets or whether it is deducted from the amount paid to us by Germany.

Lord APSLEY: I share with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) his diffidence in taking up the time of the House, but there are a few matters which, in view of the great changes that are taking place in the Army to-day, it would be well if the House could hear something about, either from individual Members, from the Secretary of State for War, or from the Financial Secretary to the War Office. In the first place, we are told in the Vote that the organisation of the Tank Corps consists of four battalions at home and one armoured corps company, and that the four battalions consist of 52 tanks each. We are not told with what type of vehicle they are supplied. I understand—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that there are three of these battalions which consist of the Vickers tank and one of them of the light tank, which I believe is being renamed an armoured machine-gun carrier. If that be the case, will that third battalion also consist of 52 tanks like the others, or will there be a very much greater number of tanks in it? Further, with regard to the Vickers tanks themselves, it appears to me to be rather a pity that there should be three battalions of 52 tanks, each having all the same type of tank.
A tank is a very expensive weapon indeed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us the cost of a Vickers tank, and also the cost of its track and of
renewing it when the original one is worn out, and the amount of petrol that it uses up per mile, because, from what information I have, the Vickers tank, though a very nice spectacular weapon, is not an economic one, and some opinions are to the effect that it is not going in the right direction for mechanical warfare. It has done very well for spectacular displays when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to Windmill Hill, and sees a display, or when the King of Afghanistan goes down to Lulworth. I understand that the Vickers tank, on ground which is well tried and previously reconnoitred, gives a very good performance, but when it comes to using it on ground that has not been reconnoitred, and you have to imagine that you are under fire, and every porthole has to be closed down, and you can only drive by periscope, then the Vickers tank, they say, is not such a good weapon to manœuvre in difficult country as even some of the older types of tank. Indeed, as regards gun practice, it is not quite so accurate on rough ground.
It appears to me that there is a danger that the Tank Corps may be running amok with the idea of shock tactics, which perhaps may not be altogether the right one, a thing which has happened before, with other arms, notably cavalry. After the charge at Waterloo, shock action was everything, and the other duties of cavalry were neglected until the next war found them wanting. There is no doubt that the Tank Corps at present are rather taken up with this idea of shock action by mechanical vehicles, regardless of the fact that at the end of the last war shock action by tanks was beginning to become more and more impossible. The Germans were producing anti-tank guns, which, although only improvised affairs, gave a measure of security to infantry against tank attack and shock action, and it is probably the fact that shock action by armoured fire vehicles is only possible, as with cavalry for that matter, on certain rare occasions when the machine can be utilised at the right place and at the right time. If you are too early or too late, it is impossible to use it as a shock weapon.
The French make no bones about it, and they call their tanks Artillerie d'Assaut, and they use them more as
mobile protected artillery than as a shock weapon. I understand the Fourth Battalion is equipped with the light tanks, which are an improvement on the Carden Lloyd tank, and that they are going to be used practically as machine gun carriers. Napoleon, when he reorganised the French cavalry, did away with the old regimental idea and formed them into three distinct corps, the Hussars, Dragoons, and Cuirassiers, and he did not do this in order to provide picturesque uniforms which their lady friends admired, but for a definite reason; and it would appear to me, as a very humble disciple in these matters, that the mechanical force is going through exactly the same stage. The Hussars of Napoleon were used for reconnaissance, particularly over long distances, and pursuit. Those are the functions of the armoured car units which are being provided in these Estimates. The Dragoons were mounted rifles, pure and simple. They were used to bring additional fire power into the firing line or to extend the flanks if necessary, or to form a defensive flank if it had to be done when the enemy manœuvred, and as soon as the men were brought up to the firing line the horses were sent back to bring up fresh men. Every regiment of Dragoons had three dismounted men to every horse, by which means they were reinforced from the reserve whenever and wherever they were required.
In addition, he had a corps called the Voltigeurs, a small, highly trained infantry corps from the South of France, trained to jump on to the horse as it went by, so that two men could be taken up into the firing line on one horse. That was the way in which Napoleon used his Dragoons. The Cuirassiers were purely shock action troops, and were used at certain critical moments when either the enemy or his own troops were on the verge of breaking and only an extra push was required to force a decision. That is the function, I gather, of the Vickers tank. It is not a strategic weapon; it is not a weapon of manœuvre. These mechanical columns with which we have been experimenting on Salisbury Plain are all right as long as they are on good ground, but I confess that on really difficult ground and under enemy observation and fire the Vickers tank, in
my humble opinion, is not a weapon that can be successfully employed for any prolonged operations. It would have to be taken to the battle zone possibly by rail and only used for special purposes, the opportunities for which may be fleeting. On the other hand, the light machine gun carrier, the light tank, will perform the function of Napoleon's Dragoons. It is not a shock unit but a mobile protected fire unit, and the infantry carriers, which should be armoured only as much as to enable them to keep their mobility, would still further perform the function of Napoleon's Dragoons. It would appear to me that those are the lines an which the Tank Corps should be working, more than on the lines of shock action and nothing but shock action, which they may seldom be able to bring into operation.
Further still, there is brought now into perfection a gun known as a self-propelled gun, which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech on the Second Reading, and that gun is apparently proving very successful. It is an ordinary 18-pounder field gun, but can be used as an anti-aircraft gun. It has an all-round traverse and a high rate of fire and a shield to protect its crew from shrapnel and machine gun bullets, and in every way it is proving a most successful weapon. Is it a gun or a tank? When is a gun not a tank, and when is a tank not a gun? Would it not be better rather than to have three battalions of Vickers tanks, at any rate to convert one of them into self-propelled guns of various calibre in order that experiments may be conducted with the various types of these armoured fire vehicles? I believe the function of tanks, apart from occasional opportunities that they may have for shock action, will prove more and more a question of manœuvring armoured artillery as best we can and as quickly as we can, possibly under fire, from place to place. They must be carefully camouflaged, or they will be subject to air attack, and hon. Members must remember, before becoming too enthusiastic about mechanical forces in war, that all mechanical arms are very much subject to aeroplane attack. You may camouflage your tanks or your self-propelled guns or any track vehicle as much as you like, but over wet ground and over sandy ground they leave a track which
you cannot conceal, and it is an easy matter for a skilled Air Force to track you out to the spot where you are hiding and then drop bombs on you. That is one of the difficulties with which the Tank Corps have to deal.
There is that question which corresponds to musketry training in the infantry, and that is artillery training for the Tank Corps. At the present moment they have only one range, which is a very limited one, at Lulworth, and they can only use direct fire at short range at a fairly large target, which does not give good opportunity for training, Would it not be possible to make an arrangement with the artillery by which the tanks and the new self-propelled guns could do their practice on artillery ranges on Salisbury Plain or wherever they can be found? Could not the Tank Corps at Lulworth be moved to Salisbury Plain, and give Lulworth up to the senior officers' school, which at present is at Sheerness, a most unsuitable place? Could not my right hon. Friend do a deal with the Air Force—I believe they would like it—and move the senior officers' school to Lulworth, giving the Air Force Sheerness?
Now, to come to artillery, there is a reference in this Vote to five brigades and six batteries of light guns, which I understand replace what were formerly called pack guns. What precisely are these guns? They are put down as 3.7 howitzers, but are they still pack guns or horse guns, or are they drawn by mechanical tractors? It seems to me that they must, if they are anti-tank weapons, play an important part, and I think hon. Members would like to know exactly what they are. I notice there are four brigades and two batteries of Royal Horse Artillery. Is it not really time that the question of the Royal Horse Artillery was revised altogether? I do not know whether it is other hon. Members' experience, but in my own opinion the 13-pounder gun is not really an effective or necessary weapon compared with what it used to be in the South African war. It is not more mobile than the 18-pounder gun. When we have had cavalry operations through difficult country, the 13-pounder gun was no more able to follow our cavalry than the 18-pounder gun. When General Bulfin's corps and two cavalry divisions made the first unsuccessful attack on Jerusalem, he
only had two pack batteries to support him. The rest were unable to follow in wet weather till the roads had been repaired. When the cavalry broke through the Turkish lines in Palestine in 1918. no artillery were able to follow except one battery, also a pack battery.
In view of that, it would appear either that the Royal Horse Artillery should be converted into field artillery, and armed with 18-pounder guns, which give better fire effect, and have a better shell, both shrapnel and high explosive, or else that they should be armed with pack artillery, which would follow mounted troops in whatever zone they were expected to act. I know that pack artillery have not been well reported on, but in my humble opinion it is largely because of the fact that they have not the right kind of pack horse and are not sufficiently mobile. If you are to have pack guns you do not want to have a gun on a horse which has to be led by a man on foot. That method is much too slow and you will not get your guns anywhere in time, except in mountainous country. You want to put the packs on Canadian light vanners. and have one man riding one horse and leading another. Then it is possible for artillery to follow the mounted troops in exactly the same way as machine gun and pack transport can follow them wherever they go.
One must remember that in the warfare of the future, whether a small war in a distant country or a big war nearer home, the use of roads and railways will be at a discount and may cease altogether. Every increase in numbers of the Air arm and every increase in its efficiency will make it more and more nearly impossible to use roads or railways by night or by day, such roads and railways being constantly subject to bombing. If the war is in a civilised country where there are metal roads, the enemy long-range guns will shell every road that is within range and it will be quite impossible to use any road as a means of transport. That was found to be the case in France. The Air Force will he constantly bombing roads and railways, and it will be almost impossible to create dumps either for ammunition or for food because of the heavy and continuous bombing by day and night. Therefore it would appear that the armies of the future will be smaller
and much more mobile and, as in the middle ages, will have to rely on living on the country or getting supplies as best they can by air. If supplies have to be put on packs, the pack should not be so arranged that one man will lead one pack. It would be better to adopt the Australian scheme of pack transport, or that adopted in the East, where you have two men with 30 pack horses and a certain number of spare horses, all being driven along. The animals, after due training, all keep together, and you
never lose one in such an arrangement with a good pack team.
There are a few notes I have made on the reorganisation of cavalry, and on them I would like to ask the Secretary of State some questions. New mechanised squadrons are to be supplied to each of the cavalry regiments at the expense of horse squadrons. Are the men of these mechanised squadrons still being taught ordinary cavalry training? Are they still taught to ride, to do training in reconnaisance, in inter-communication, outpost duties and in all the many branches of ordinary cavalry training? If not, and if they are merely made into machine gunners and mechanics, suppose that it happens that a cavalry force is required to operate in a country where there are marshes, forest or mountains, or in any place where track vehicles could not follow at the same pace, and suppose that the machine guns and transport had to be put on packs. Would these men be able to work their transport on packs? If not, there is the danger of a cavalry regiment being left with two squadrons and being deprived of its chief fire power just at the moment when it may be wanted. I am not quite certain of the value of the Vickers gun for cavalry regiments. It is excellent in trench warfare, as we found in France. It was useless in the South African War, nor was it of great value to mounted troops in Palestine. To manœuvre the Vickers gun about is not easy. It cannot be used for repetition fire, but relies principally on automatic fire, for which reason we found it easy to spot an enemy's Vickers gun and knock it out with artillery or automatic rifle fire. They are very slow in getting into action and in getting out of it.
It appears to me that in view of these objections and difficulties, the automatic rifle would be a better weapin. Repetition fire in open warfare is more effective and more economical with ammunition. Consequently the automatic rifle would probably give better results in the ordinary duties of the mounted troops. Suppose also that a cavalry force has to be swum across a river. The bridges have been blown up by the Air Force or a retiring rear guard. Your Vickers gun will be a very awkward thing to get over the river, and special rafts will be necessary. Any delay may cost the advanced guard the possibility of effecting the crossing in safety. On the other hand automatic rifles, because they are very much lighter, would be very much easier to transport.
Those are the several things that appear to be outstanding on these Votes. There is the further question of co-operation between mounted troops and tanks, especially in the manœuvres that are about to take place. Whether the value of special troops attached to tank units for ground reconnaissance and for protection by day as well as at night has been really recognised, and whether it would not be possible to have either cavalry or yeomanry trained for this work as mounted scouts, has to be decided. Perhaps there are present some hon. Members who served with divisional cavalry in France and they will know the difficulty that they had to undergo. The wretched cavalry regiment had to find men for every kind of duty. A troop was wanted as an escort to a convoy, or another troop to dig a well; the Divisional Commander wanted to go on reconnaissance and required a troop; a staff officer wanted a batman, and another staff officer wanted an orderly. For every blessed small task they always came down on the divisional cavalry to supply the men. The cavalry were always on outpost day and night and had to do fatigues and other duties at the same time. I suggest that with the introduction of the mechanical force we should, at any rate, remedy that difficulty by allotting to every tank battalion or unit a certain number of mounted troops to assist them in these various jobs, so that they also will not apply to the divisional cavalry! These are various points on which I would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to throw some light in his reply.
I beg to thank the House for having listened patiently to a rather long and technical speech.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. I want to deal with the reference which has been made to the cavalry. We heard of this controversy when the Estimates were introduced, and there were then definite sides taken on the subject. Members on the Government side wish to keep the cavalry; we on this side of the House wish to do away with them. The reply given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office was not quite as definite as I would have liked it to be. He stated that there were two strictly divergent views, and that the best thing for the War Office to do was to take the middle course. Therefore it was not intended to cut down the cavalry as quickly as I would like, nor did the War Office intend to maintain the cavalry as the other side would like. I do not think that attitude is altogether right. The Financial Secretary and the Secretary of State ought to realise that the time has come for a complete change in the methods of war. The mechanised part of an army is to play a greater part than ever before and greater attention should be paid to it. We need not go back to Napoleon for guidance, nor even to Hannibal. Although cavalry has played a part of great usefulness in the past, it is of no use at all now. I am expecting that the Secretary of State will not be influenced by men who have held positions in cavalry regiments. I am hoping that he will take a wider view of the question and build up on what he finds is the necessity to-day. I would draw the attention of the House to what the right hon. Gentleman said last year:
Where in the past cavalry moved perhaps 20 miles ahead of an Army in order to search for the enemy, armoured cars will possibly be able to move more than 100 miles.
That proves conclusively that the time has come to do away with cavalry. The right hon. Gentleman said further:
For holding the enemy, these machines and others, such as mechanised machine gun units, will be able to circle round an adversary, and tanks, which are impervious to bullets, will have it in their power to hit and smash with far greater effect than the existing arms.
That goes to show that the time has come when there is no use at all for cavalry. If we are to have economy in the Army Estimates, something has to be cut away, and there is only this one arm that can be cut away. We ask the Secretary of State to bear that fact in mind. Recent events point to what is happening. Here is a statement in a newspaper of yesterday from a special correspondent in Iraq:
Great Britain's Air Force is now bearing the brunt of the battle. We have something like 100 fighting machines in the country, and they are being flown from early dawn till long after the sun descends over the burning desert. Reconnaissance patrols are now penetrating far into, Nejd country on the necessary operation of securing intelligence of forward movements of Wahabis. Forward air stations have been established at strategic points far in the desert along the whole length of Mesopotamia. Ten great Victoria double-engine bombing machines, capable of carrying enormous loads of supplies of water to outlying stations are standing by at Ur. Every available flying officer in the country is on duty, and in my air journey from Cairo I was accompanied by six officers recalled from the middle of leave from England. Four more arrived by air to-day.
He is saying there that in Iraq the Air Force is all important.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In what paper was that?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The "Daily Express" of yesterday. When I was speaking last time, I was challenged by hon. Members opposite because I said that the Cavalry was played out, and here is the proof of it. In view of that we want to impress on the Secretary of State that, when we are moving a reduction of 100 men, it is not for the purpose of doing away with the Army, but to make effective, the force that we have, to carry it on as economically as possible, and to draw attention to the various ways in which we think it may be done. Last year there was a reduction, but the Cavalry regiments did not fall very much. There was a reduction of only 55 men in an arm of the Service that ought to be cut down more quickly than any other. If there is to be no reduction in this direction, where is the reduction to take place? We ask seriously that the Secretary of State and his Department should give full consideration to this matter, and do what they can. I want the Army to be as
efficient as possible, if fighting has got to take place. I am not one of those who say that we can do without an Army altogether; I believe that we must have an Army, but we do not want to keep an arm of the Service, which is of no use at all, simply because it is particularly attractive to some people. I hope the Secretary of State will take our action in urging this reduction in the best spirit; we do it because we want to cut away something which we think can be done, away with. The late Secretary of State for War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), last year made the remark that the horse should be relegated to the museum as far as its usefulness was concerned. He is a man who has had a period in the Army Council, and his opinion ought not to be turned away lightly. I share that opinion, because I feel confident that much economy can be effected in that direction.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I did not intend to say anything in this Debate, but the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has said that Cavalry are useless, and I must say a word about that. I do not think that he or the House realises how many leaders in modern times the Cavalry has provided in the Army. At the end of the South African War there were 70 columns, one-half of them commanded by Cavalry officers. In any war that we have had, Cavalry officers have come out on top. In the last War, the big leaders at the end were Cavalry officers—the late Earl Haig, Lord Byng, Lord Allenby and Sir Philip Chetwode. The Cavalry had far more than their proportionate share of the big leaders in the War, and they will have in future wars. It is not for me or the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to judge what is necessary to make the Army the best in the world, and whether Cavalry are necessary. I leave it in the hands of the Army Council, who are in touch with what is necessary abroad. In countries like India you will find Field-Marshal Sir William Birdwood and others refusing to diminish their cavalry to any great extent, because it is necessary for the situation which they have to meet. The hon. Member quoted the case of Iraq. The Air Force, of course, at the present time, is the chief arm in that
country, but there must be Cavalry even there. The Air Force when they come down must have the support of cavalry or of mounted troops. There are many in Iraq or on the northern outposts, for they are needed for protection during rest time. I do not say for a moment that we ought to increase our Cavalry, but we ought to be careful not to reduce it to such an extent that the Army will lose by it, as I am sure they would in many of the situations that occur in war.
All the time that I was in India 75,000 was the number of British troops in the Indian Army regarded as absolutely necessary. Since the Mutiny that was considered the minimum, but now the number has gone down to 68,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Stare for War has just come back from India, and he knows the dangers, not only on the frontier but internally, and I hope that the Indian authorities are in agreement with the reduction of British troops in the Indian Army to this comparatively small number. I was told by an Indian Army officer last year that, if you happened to have a Cavalry regiment in the plains during the hot weather, it was far more effective to send some British troops where trouble might be going on, for a native cavalry regiment could not be used to stop a row between Hindus. British troops are worth more in that country than a brigade of native troops to stop bloodshed, for they have the power, as they have in Germany or wherever they may be quartered, of being trusted by those among whom they live. I hope that matter will be carefully considered.
I want to ask one other question, which was put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the remount depots, and have the War Office thought out how many remounts they want? Is it not about time that they should make up their mind how many cavalry regiments they are going to keep mounted, and how this is going to effect the remount depots? The War Office have done very little for the remount depots, and the housing in some cases is a disgrace. If they are not to have mounted troops, they may be able to make some reduction there. Lastly, I want to ask about the conversion of two cavalry regiments into armoured car regiments. In the Army
Debate the other day, I inquired of the Secretary of State which were the two regiments, and he asked me not to press him on the subject. A few days afterwards, it was in the papers that my old regiment was one of the two. I think that that information might have been given in Parliament before it was published in the papers, and as I did not press the point, at the right hon. Gentleman's own request, it was all the more reason why it should have been given to the House before it was allowed to get into the Press, and before the regiments themselves knew about it. They are to be armoured car regiments, and I should like to know what that means. How many armoured cars are they to have? I understand that the officers are still to have some of their horses, for a time at least. How are they to be organised? The organisation must have been arranged, otherwise it would have been quite wrong to demobolise the horses.

Mr. HARDIE: I am going to take no part as between the cavalry and other sections of the Forces, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last was asking his question about horses being attached to the armoured car regiments, I wondered whether the Minister would be able to tell us if the horses have to be carried on these cars, or are they to be kept for dragging the cars when they break down? I cannot see what is going to be the use of horses unless it be for some expected process of dragging or carrying something. If the horses are not to be carried in the cars, at what distance are they to be from the cars, for their own safety, and who has to look after the horses? Are they to be a special detachment, apart from those engaged in the work of conducting the cars?
The question of the mechanisation of the Army has led me to consider some important points. I regret that the gifts of knowledge, which have been given to the human race, should ever be applied in the foul way that they are being applied by nations for the destruction of human life, and it is from that point of view that I wish to put some questions, in the interests of those, who by choice or compulsion, take up this class of work, as it is called—a misnomer, in my opinion. I wonder if the
right hon. Gentleman has ever thought out this question, and whether he will be able to give me an answer. The covered car is driven by petrol. We know what takes place in the ordinary car in the open with certain kinds of that which is sold as petrol, but, which is not petrol. Those who use petrol know that, when there is an escape by evaporation, it does not go up into the air, but down, and I would like to know what protection there is for the men inside the car. Of course, I shall be told that everything will be made as secure as possible, but the vibration in a tank is such that the most skilled engineer would find it difficult to make everything proof against unexpected vibration or shock. Have any ideas been put forward for the protection of the men operating the tanks? I should think that if those who want to kill other men could direct those deadly fumes wherever they wished, they would use them as part of their forces for murder; but what I want to know is whether any protection is provided for the men working in the armoured cars?
My second point is whether any special precautions are being taken over the quality of the petrol used in these armoured cars. As an individual I have been putting questions to the Home Secretary; I have been fobbed off when speaking of the addition of certain substances to petrol. I notice in this House that when an hon. Members starts a subject, especially if it be of a technical nature. hon. Members at first laugh and sneer at it, but when they have lived a few weeks longer and find that it is a reality they are all like parrots, trying to say the same thing, not because they know anything about it but because they are all anxious to steal the plot. This never disturbs anyone who knows his subject, but only disturbs those who do not know it. In my second question I am asking whether precautions are being taken against the addition of, say, "tetra." Have the War Department made investigations into the effects of these fumes of which I am speaking?
During the consideration of the Navy Estimates it was shown that consumption attacked men owing to the conditions under which they were compelled to live, and I shall be dealing with that point when those Estimates come up again. I may be told that whereas the naval man
has no choice in the matter of where he lives, being confined to his ship, that men in an armoured car crew will have some chance to recruit in the fresh air even if a leakage of petrol does take place. I wish to inform those who may not know it that anyone who gets even the smallest dose of tetra-ethyl, no matter how small it may be, does not lose it, and that if he gets a second dose it is an addition to the one he has already got, because this substance is cumulative in its effects. If you got one dose to-day and another dose a year or two afterwards, the effects of the second one would be added to the other, so that any idea which may be passing through the minds of hon. Members opposite as to tank men recuperating in the fresh air is not to the point. If this subject has not been investigated by the War Department I should like to be told so frankly, and perhaps they might indicate also whether they intend to inquire into it or not, because I wish to secure the protection of the individual in this mechanisation of the Army.
When we were dealing with the Air Estimates a question arose of the effect of shells dropped on to a given object from a certain height. I wish to know whether those concerned with the design of tanks have investigated the best materials for the shell back, as I would call it—the covering of the back of the tank? Have any experiments been made with various metals, on the lines of what will happen in ordinary warfare, by dropping high explosives on them from a good height? In dealing with the mechanised part of the Army we are inclined to forget the human part. I have just spent two hours in writing letters to men who were broken in the last War, and here we are to-day, in the British House of Commons, with 23 or 24 hon. Members present, dealing with what is a cause of great destruction of men's lives. It seems to me to be an inhuman type of mind that can go coolly on with the consideration of means for the further destruction of human life while at the same time disregarding the broken men who are making appeals to us to-day by every post. I hope the Minister will try to answer these questions and will realise that a plea coming from one who is against War is put forward in all sincerity, in order to secure the protection
of individuals. If we are to have the mechanisation of the Army we ought not to adopt methods which put human life last and the machine first. It is all very well to talk of the efficiency of the tank, and to tell us what horse-power it can develop and to what angle it can rise or fall—that is all very well from the mechanical side, but I am pleading for the human side. What has been the experience of the men in some of the tanks? What has happened to their nervous systems? All these points must be considered if we can claim to be members of a Christian nation, not to speak of being civilised, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reply on these points.

Mr. LAWSON: We are discussing today the question of voting something like £20,000,000 and ultimately, I believe, about £41,000,000. I have been thinking while this discussion has been going on that we are considering this expenditure of £41,000,000 in almost a cloistered atmosphere. As one who has faithfully tried to read through the 300 pages or so explaining all the items which go to make up this figure, as one who has gone through the Estimates Vote by Vote, page by page and item by item, I have been struck not so much by the colossal amount of money which is to be spent on the war machine as by the efficiency of the organisation for the perfection of that machine, and the calm, patient, concentrated, deadly purpose which is characteristic of all war machines in the world to-day. I know that I should not be allowed to discuss policy and the party to which I belong have very definitely made up their minds to a policy of a reduction of armaments by international agreement, but I think I speak the mind of the party when I say that while we will give all the help we can towards improving the efficiency of the Army in the world as it is we are far more concerned about world disarmament than about the mechanisation of the cavalry.
Having said this much, I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), and also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell us something about the Army on the Rhine, which my hon. and gallant Friend described as "the lost legion." Neither in the Estimates nor
in the Army Report have we very much information about the Army on the Rhine. My hon. and gallant Friend paid a well-merited tribute to the conduct of the men there under difficult circumstances. When we recollect that they have been there—at least the Army has been there, with changes in the individuals composing it—for something like 10 years, and when we understand that there have been practically no complaints, at any rate very few, it is a great tribute not only to the conduct of the men of our forces, but is a tribute to human nature, as showing how people can be friendly in difficult circumstances and under conditions which are the result of a great war. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information which will show that the Army is not going to stay there indefinitely? They have been there now for 10 years and they are costing the country money. The country cannot afford a great part of the money spent upon other items in these Estimates, apart from this expenditure in a direction which appears to be scarcely necessary now.
I have also a question to ask with reference to Vote 10. I raised this question of the reorganisation of the Department when the Estimates were previously before us. I said then that I spoke with diffidence about the allocation of duties and all the effects which would follow from the reorganisation. I also said that anyone who spoke about the results of that reorganisation must step very carefully, because it might have quite unexpected results. The House will remember that certain duties which were under the Quartermaster-General have been handed over to the Master-General of the Ordnance, and certain duties carried out by the Master-General of the Ordnance have been handed over to the Quartermaster-General. The Minister for War did not seem very sure about this process. We have had the White Paper telling us exactly how and why this took place and this is what it states:
On 26th November, 1926, the Army Council formulated some provisional decisions for the purpose of being advised by a Committee, representing the departments concerned, as to the nature and extent of the alterations in the existing organisation which would result. The Committee, which reported in May, 1927, failed to reach a complete agreement.
The Secretary of State referred this Report to the Military Members of the Army Council and the Permanent Under-Secretary, and received their advice in June, 1927.
He approved the changes they advised, and his decision was recorded at a meeting of the Army Council in June, 1927.
It cannot, therefore, be said that any change has been made hastily or without due consideration.
What happened was that the Army Committee set up by the Army Council could not agree. The Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance certainly could not agree. The right hon. Gentleman then referred the matter to two of the military members of the Army Council and the Permanent Secretary. In effect the right hon. Gentleman says, "I do not know very much about this matter, but I leave it to you to settle by a majority." The result was that the Quartermaster-General had works, buildings and lands under his charge. The Quartermaster-General had also to provide supplies, road transport, food and remounts. That means that he has to provide food, housing, barracks and other accommodation, and he has to arrange for the transport of the troops and the rest of it and then he is handed over the works, buildings and fortifications. The result is that the Quartermaster-General not only has to deal with the quartering, movements and supplies, but he has actually to deal with submarine communications as well as fortifications. He has also to look after the buildings for research and the ordnance buildings in which those who are responsible to the Master-General of the Ordnance are going to do the work of carrying out designs for the provision of all kinds of mechanical arrangements which are necessary for army purposes.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends those arrangements to be permanent? Does he intend that the Quartermaster-General should actually be responsible for fortifications, more especially such great fortifications as those at Singapore? Has he to be permanently responsible for submarine communications, and the re-organisation and renewal of submarine communications? is that arrangement to be permanent? On the other hand, the Master-General of the Ordnance not only has to supply tanks and guns for the offensive side of the needs of the Army, but he is also responsible
for the clothing of the troops. I think the Secretary of State for War must agree that that can only be a kind of makeshift arrangement, and that it cannot remain for any length of time. I am not going into the further question of the possible appointment of a deputy Master-General of the Ordnance in case of active operations. There are those, who are in a better position than I am to judge in these matters, who question the wisdom of that action. Certainly it was laid down very definitely by one of the most famous committees that have ever dealt with War Office organisations, the Esher Committee, that operations should not be bothered in time of war with questions relating to administration.
I am not going to deal with that question except to say that there is a considerable body of opinion which believes that what is now being done is a great mistake, and this was definitely emphasised at the time by the Esher Committee as the cause of many of our misfortunes in the time of test and trial. Whether we consider the question of organisation or the ultimate effects of that organisation in a time of conflict, it does seem to me that if the right hon. Gentleman could not trust himself to decide upon a matter of this kind, there is good ground for holding an inquiry similar to the Commission which examined this question before. In any case, there is certainly some necessity to reconsider the duties of the Quartermaster General, as compared with the duties of the Master-General of the Ordnance.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the cost of the camp at Catterick. We have an item of £140,000 in this financial year for accommodation at Catterick. I understand that the original estimate for the accommodation of troops at Catterick was something under £1,000,000. After this the housing of the troops in this new command was reconsidered, and it was discovered that the probable cost would be about £3,000,000 to house the troops at Catterick in new accommodation. It was afterwards decided that the old huts should be reconditioned, and the cost of that amounted to £1,000,000. The total estimate is £1,438,000, and I should like to ask the Secretary for War how much the reconditioning of the accommodation
for the troops is to cost? It is now costing the nation a very large sum; in fact, I regard the cost as a colossal sum of money. The amount of this item has been increasing from time to time, and we ought to know what is going to be the ultimate cost of the reconditioning of the huts in this camp.
Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied in his own mind that this reconditioning of the huts will last for any length of time, and will prove satsifactory for permanent accommodation purposes? There have been rumours to the effect that this accommodation will not last for any length of time, and that it is not ideal. I know that some of the housing accommodation there was passing comfortable after the reconditioning took place, but I wish to know what is to be the total cost. I also wish to refer to the question of vocational training which used to take place at Catterick. The right hon. Gentleman says that the cost to the average ranker is not at all prohibitive, but I am not so sure about that. Neither the Army Council nor this House would desire that anything should be done to interfere with the successful and necessary training in this new camp, where there are now something like 200 men, most of them non-commissioned officers.
I admit that the Army has done one very good piece of work for its men in the realm of education and vocational training, and I am sure this work would recommend itself to anyone who has seriously considered this question of the training of the men. I should say that by far the most efficient training centre in this country is that which at first was at Catterick, but which has now been transferred to Chisledon. I hope the restrictions which have been placed upon that training centre and the standards which have been settled are not going to interfere with efficient training in that camp. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this 7s. 6d., which has been laid down as a training fee, is to be set aside for the purpose of encouraging rankers to come in under this scheme? At Chisledon there are facilities for training 1,000 men at a time when many men are being turned out of the Army. My opinion is that we should be training as many men as possible in those camps in order that they may have
an opportunity of becoming efficient and adaptable workmen, so as to fit themselves once more for civilian duties.
The Army has been called a blind-alley occupation. Men enlist for five years, or seven years, or whatever the period may be. They are isolated from the rest of the community; they lose touch with the ordinary civilian occupations, and, when they have finished their service, they certainly stand less chance than the average man of getting work in the ordinary industrial field. Some enlightened persons in the Army set out to remedy that, and they did first-class work. I am really afraid that the new arrangements at Chisledon are going to interfere with the efficient training of men, and certainly they are affecting the number of men that are being taken into that camp for that purpose. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, on this occasion, to take seriously, not only this question of training at Chisledon, but also the question of reorganisation, and the duties which have been allotted to the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance. I repeat that, while we on this side of the House are certainly not enthusiastic about war—and I do not believe that anyone in the House at all is—and while we do not welcome having to pass Votes of this kind, yet, when we do vote this money, we at any rate want to see that the best possible use is made of it. I repeat what I said at the beginning, that all that we can wish is that these Estimates, and the Estimates of the armies and navies of the world, could be read calmly by every citizen, so that he might see, with cumulative effect upon his mind, the deadly purpose that is revealed behind them, everyone doing the best he can to realise the effect, not only of the mobilisation of men, but of the mobilisation of money and brains to one end. The result of that would be that not only would this reduction in the number of men be agreed to, but the world would hasten on its plans and the realisation of its desires for disarmament.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I notice, from the Vote that is now under consideration, that the War Office propose to spend on the Singapore defence forces a total sum of £685,000, the first £30,000 of which is to be spent by the 31st March of this
year, and a further£132,000 by the end of the next financial year. I should like to know from the Secretary of State for War what part of this constructional work is going to be completed within the next two or three years, and over what total period the total sum will be spread. I did not gather, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to a question about the Singapore base this afternoon, whether this work is being done by a Government Department or by contractors, nor did I gather from his reply what are the labour conditions of the men employed. It seems to me to be very important that the War Office should be able to assure us this evening that the Britishers, at any rate, who are out there on that work to-day, are not only provided with adequate housing conditions as we understand them in this country, but that extra provision is made for them in that tropical climate. What are the provisions for their health and comfort in regard to the type of houses and bungalows?
Then I wish to know whether the War Office is making any special provision in the way of social amenities for these men. Singapore and its defences are in a very lonely spot. These men are living and working under very difficult conditions of climate, and I want to know why it is that the Government have neglected the question of social amenities for these people who are in that part of the world. I also wish to know whether it is intended that any portion of this total sum of £685,000 shall be spent on the protection of the present causeway which links up the island of Singapore with the State of Johore on the mainland of the Malay Peninsula. This causeway is the only connecting link between Singapore and the mainland for railway and road transport. Is the Secretary of State for War aware that a number of Japanese have bought up large tracts of land in the State of Johore, which command a view of the batteries of these Singapore defences? Is he aware that these Japanese planters, as they are called, happen to have bought this land at a point which might be useful from a military point of view?
The whole of Malaya is well adapted for rubber plantation work, and it is rather curious that these few Japanese firms should have bought these particular
sites which command the battery defences of Singapore; and I think it is of the utmost importance, if we are to spend countless millions of money upon this naval base and upon military defences for that base, that we should make absolutely sure that the money is not idly spent. I wish to ask who is responsible—whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's Department or some other Department, or whether, in their joint consultations, they are all jointly responsible for the stupidity of building this causeway as it now is, blocking up the channel at this point and making impossible, if anyone should blow up the causeway, the transport of troops from the island of Singapore to the mainland or vice versa. We have heard a great deal from this Government about the need for this Singapore base and for land defences for it. Before it is completed, it will have cost this country a very sorry sum of money, and there are many traders and commercial men in Singapore today who are getting very anxious about this mad adventure. It is very doubtful indeed whether local opinion on the spot really strongly supports it at all. I think it is the duty of the Secretary of State for War to clear up these, points, because they are of very great importance to us in regard to this question of Singapore.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I think that I have about enough questions from hon. Members to take a little time in replying, and that I had better intervene now. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) opened this Debate by moving a reduction of 100 men. He complained that there was a force still in Wiesbaden, and that it was either not adequate as a force or, if it were adequate as a force, that it was so large that he desired it to be reduced. He gave us a good deal of good-humoured chaff about the constitution of the force —about 17 remount officers being out there buying German horses upon which to mount British cavalry. That was one of his suggestions. I do not blame him in the least, but he was looking at the wrong page of the Estimates. He was reading a note on page 47, and, if he
will read that note again, he will see that the 17 remount officers are not on the Rhine, but in England. Actually there is one remount officer on the Rhine, and he is being withdrawn on the 31st March of this year. The actual reason, therefore, put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for reducing this Vote by 100 men is not a valid one, but that, no doubt, will not prevent him from voting for the reduction and being supported by his hon. Friends.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but was he paying so little attention to my poor speech that he thought that my only ground of complaint was in regard to the 17 remount officers? Does he not know that my whole objection is to having this army there at all 10 years after the War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was only giving that as one of the difficulties that, I appreciate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in going through these Estimates without a very much longer study than he, with his many other occupations, can possibly give to them. He asked why there should be this army on the Rhine at all. It is a part of the international force which is there under the Treaty with which the War terminated, and the policy of keeping an army there is one which we cannot discuss on this occasion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to say that it is too expensive, or is not efficient, or to try to get its composition reconsidered, but I am afraid that the policy of keeping an international force there is a matter which we cannot discuss to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also spoke of the number of the force, and I want to make a correction in regard to that, because otherwise it might appear that I agree with him. He said, quoting from page 29 of the Estimates, that there were 7,252, but again he omitted to read quite correctly the footnote, which would have warned him that that figure includes all the recruits belonging to the particular regiments that are on the Rhine, the recruits being at home in the depots. Therefore, the actual figures that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have found on the page which I gave him in answer to a question to-day, namely, page 294, show that
the establishment is 6,328, and that includes a small detachment of 93 on the Saar. That is the number, and by agreement the British Army on the Rhine has been reduced within the last year by over 1,000. Excluding the Saar, the actual establishment now is 6,250, and, as a matter of fact, we are a few hundreds under establishment at this moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether these troops were in barracks, and whether their comfort was looked after. They are in barracks. I myself visited them in July or August last—

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is that a comfort?

6.0 p.m.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was a comfort to me to realise that they were properly treated, and I thought it was part of my duty to visit them. They are in barracks, and, taking it all round, they are not badly housed or badly looked after. All the conditions are not ideal. Their training conditions are not the best. If there were more room and less agriculture it would be more possible to have training. Training facilities are not what I could wish, but nevertheless both divisional training and collective training were carried out last autumn. If they were in England, their training would, no doubt, be more easily arranged. On the whole, the conditions are not so bad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman need fear the Army is deteriorating. I should like to join with him in his tribute to their conduct. It is remarkable, not only how well they behaved—because that is not remarkable—but how well they are liked by those with whom they come into contact. They are, no doubt, not unwelcome at this moment in the position that they occupy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it necessary for a hotel to be used for general headquarters for this little army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member also called attention to the staff. It is not like a staff at home. A staff in one of the commands at home with which he was comparing them is a self-contained staff, dealing, it is true, with the War Office, but having no allies to deal with. On the Rhine the army
has a great many duties to carry out which are not carried out by a staff at home. They have to act in concert with the French and Belgians, and they have, for example, a good deal of extra work in connection with billeting or the requisitioning of their requirements. All of that has to be done with great care and by experienced officers if friction is to be avoided. I have looked into the question of staff, because, without understanding what the duties of the staff are, it looks heavy, but, having regard to the duties they have to carry out, I am satisfied that it cannot be released. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says: Why take a hotel for headquarters? There are not many large buildings available for headquarters, and there is nothing so uneconomical as to have your staff spread about in small buildings at widely-separated distances. It is far better to have them concentrated and the work more economically and efficiently done.
With regard to Singapore, again I am only entitled to discuss the expenditure that falls on the Army Votes. I cannot accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), and begin to discuss the whole question whether or not we ought to be there or whether we should have a fortified base there or not, but I can tell him the total expenditure that will fall upon the Army Vote is £685,000, and this year about £132,000 is to be spent. That expenditure is under the control of the local general officer commanding. When I am asked details about the number of civilians employed, I cannot possibly be expected to know. As to the rate of wage and the conditions of employment, again I cannot say, except that the general instructions are that labour is to be employed in these circumstances in accordance with the fair local market rate, and I have not the least doubt that general instruction is being carried out.

Mr. MARDY JONES: There are a number of British employed on this constructional work. They are living under tropical conditions, away from all social amenities. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance that special provision is made for these people under these exceptional circumstances, that they are not only well paid, but that in their leisure time, when the day's
work is done, there is something to relieve their monotony in a strange land, away from home surroundings.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is too all-embracing an assurance. I cannot tell how they employ their leisure time. I can only say that they are free men. They are not there under compulsion. Presumably, like everyone else who takes up employment, they consider the pay that is going to be offered and the conditions under which they are going to be employed and make up their minds whether or not they will accept the employment. I could not give more information without notice, but, as the question has been raised, I will ascertain what the general conditions are.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked about Pimlico and why we had turned warehousemen into porters? The reason is that the work they do is porters' work. He asked under what conditions they were employed? They are employed under the fair wage conditions, and those conditions, of course, are binding upon all Departments of State, and they are observed at Pimlico. The hon. Member complained of the housing at Didcot. We are providing in these Estimates for £25,000, being part of a total of £75,000, which is intended to give housing for 105 civilians. These are payments which are being made out of the Army Votes. I know because, as far as I have been able, I have helped a housing scheme which is being carried out not by Army Votes I am as anxious as the hon. Member to see that our employes at Didcot are well housed and at reasonable rents and within a reasonable distance of their employment. I know very well that for some years past they have been suffering the greatest inconvenience, having to come long distances and to pay high rents for their indifferent houses, and so far as it has been possible without taking upon the Army Votes the whole burden of housing, which I cannot do, I have done all that I can to help them. I am asked why we are spending £25,000 this year at Feltham? We are doing that, because we are remodelling existing buildings for the Royal Amy Service Corps repair shops, which have been concentrated for some time at Feltham. I was asked, also, why compassionate gratuities were lower? I
am glad that they are lower. The reason is because there will be fewer discharges.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) gave us, as he frequently does, a welcome addition to our knowledge, because he put very searching questions which no one to-day can possibly answer. I can, however, say that the general staff are studying a great many of these questions, and for that purpose an experimental armoured force was operating last year and will operate again this year. He asked whether the Third Battalion of tanks would have 52 tanks. That is the present intention. He raised a very interesting speculative question whether it would not be better, instead of putting these tanks on chassis, to put them on something that would carry artillery of various calibres. That is exactly one of the questions that is being considered, and I hope an answer will be found. I do not think he need be afraid that the Tank Corps would run amok with the Vickers tank. They are not pinning their faith upon the tank for shock tactics to replace the shock tactics of cavalry. That is not the conception that we have developed of the tank and the mechanised force.
I was asked also whether the light batteries were pack or mechanised. They are pack, and they will remain pack for the present. I am asked; Why should not the Royal Horse Artillery be re-armed? Why keep the 13-pounder? Why not find them a better gun? That is largely a question of money. The 13-pounder is waiting for the moment, but within a not-too-longtime we shall he able to re-arm when the money becomes available. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to know whether the men of the Cavalry Machine Gun Squadron were being trained as cavalrymen—and he explained what he meant by training as cavalrymen—or being used as mechanics. No, they are being used as cavalry, and they are being sorted out after they have been trained as cavalrymen, and, should they be in a country where vehicles could not carry machine guns, and animals had to do so, they will be capable of functioning under those circumstances. My hon. and gallant Friend also suggested that we should replace the Vickers gun by an automatic rifle. An automatic rifle is a
thing we have been searching for for a considerable time, and I rather hope that we have got it. I do not want to say that positively, and I do not at the moment see where the money is coming from, but we are working along on those lines. He complained that during the War a mere squadron of cavalry alloted to a division was insufficient. Our present plans, which I explained in Committee, permit of a regiment being allotted to each division instead of a squadron, and I hope that will be found to be effective.
Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) called attention to the reduction of British troops in India, but he did not get the figures quite right. They are 64,040—not so many as he mentioned. He hoped that the Indian authorities were satisfied with the reduction I had made. In that respect, the British Army is the servant of India. India is the paying authority. She pays the price and calls the tune, and the reduction of the British Army in India was not a voluntary reduction by the authorities at the War Office, but was asked for by India in order to relieve the finances of India. I would willingly have continued to have the infantry in its old establishment. I should have preferred it to the new establishment, but, of course, it was for the Indian authorities to decide.
Then he asked me what is to be the organisation of the 11th Hussars and 12th Lancers, and he complained that the fact that those two regiments had been selected was disclosed in the Press before it was announced in the House. He was probably not present when I answered a question on that subject, to which I would refer him. It was not at my wish that there was any public disclosure before I could state the facts in the House. It was unauthorised and incorrect. I cannot control the papers. They no doubt heard gossip. They were very nearly right but not quite right, and I very much regret that the 12th Lancers had only just got the official despatch, or perhaps had not received it, at the time that it was disclosed in the Press. It was not really my fault. I was trying to do the exact opposite. The two cavalry regiments which are being mounted on armoured cars are to be three
squadrons of 34 armoured cars. During this year, these Estimates provide for the regiment at home having 34 armoured cars, the regiment in, Egypt—that is the 12th Lancers—having 11 armoured cars only, so that one squadron shall be mounted on armoured cars and the mounts of the other squadrons will be changed in succeeding years. I cannot do it in Egypt completely this year.
I think I have dealt with everything except the points raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). He really raised two major questions—the question of vocational training and the question of alterations in the duties of the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of the Ordnance. Let me deal with the last one first. Fortunately, he did not re-open the whole question, but dealt with only a portion of it. He wanted to know why the buildings should now be transferred to the Quartermaster-General. There are some ragged ends, as there always are in an alteration in an organisation, and then it comes to a question of choice of what you think is best on the whole. Let me explain what the proposition was. We had internal combustion engines which were increasing and which are going to increase in number. As the old organisation was, those that were mounted on chassis which ran on wheels were under the Quartermaster-General, and those that were mounted on chassis that went on tracks were under the Master-General of the Ordnance. The tracks became semi-tracks and the wheeled vehicles became at times wheeled vehicles, and sometimes tracked vehicles as invention had made them interchangeable, and the confusion between the two classes—the one allocated to the Quartermaster-General, and the other allocated to the Master of the Ordnance—was supreme, and something had to be done. Moreover, the real reason was obviously the internal combustion engine and not the horse; that was the motive power in the field. Unless you are to have duplication in repairs, in design, in research, in the two separate departments, there had to be an amalgamation. I have amalgamated, and I have amalgamated with the Master-General of the Ordnance. But that means throwing a great deal of extra work on the Master-General of the Ordance. It means that all
factories, including the clothing factory, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, come under the Quartermaster-General.
Was there some duty which the Quartermaster-General was doing which had been thrown upon him in the past which could have been transferred to the Quartermaster-General? There was. The Quartermaster-General was responsible for quartering, for finding quarters, and we have made him now responsible for building quarters. The hon. Member says, "Yes, but he is now going to build places which the Master-General of the Ordnance is going to use." Yes, because I do not want two building departments. I want one, and I put that one building department under the Quartermaster-General. If the hon. Gentleman comes to think about it, he will find that there is a real reason for the alteration which has been made, and the alteration is a permanent alteration, although I will not say that ragged ends here and there cannot be, by experience, improved upon and the organisation made a little cleaner in the future. It may be so, and I shall be the last to put any obstacle in the way of that.
I will now deal with the question of vocational training centres, because I think all sides of the House realise that it is the duty of whatever Government are in power to do their best to bring back to civil life the men they employ while they are young and in the Army. It is quite true we take young men at a time when they might otherwise be learning a trade, and we return them to civil life at a time, possibly, when it is too late to learn a trade, and it is up to the State to see that those men do not suffer more than is inevitable. All the time I have been Secretary of State for War, I have been increasing and not decreasing the amount of vocational training which has been given. The hon. Member seemed to think that it had been decreased this year. He is quite wrong. Actually last year the numbers in training went up from 1,050 to 1,440. The alteration from Catterick to Chisledon has meant that at Chisledon there can be trained 1,200 people, and it is a very large increase—not all in agriculture, but in other trades as well.

Mr. LAWSON: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman did a real service when
he transferred the Catterick training centre to Chisledon, and I also appreciate what he did in that respect. But the point I made was that the preparation of the rankers and non-commissioned officers at Chisledon as against Catterick has actually decreased.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman's fear is. I said the places for non-commissioned officers and men at Chisledon are now 1,200, which is a great increase upon anything we have had before.

Mr. LAWSON: There are not 1,200 men there. There are only about 290 at the outside.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, that is on agriculture. The hon. Gentleman is now thinking of the agricultural figures. I have the agricultural figures. They have also gone up. I am not quite sure what the exact figure is; it is on page 108 of the Army Estimates, and the numbers that can be trained in agriculture are certainly more. On page 108 it says:
The full scheme provides for the following numbers to be trained annually; Chisledon, 1,200; Hounslow, 750; Aldershot, 440.
Those are the total numbers, and the change from Catterick to Chisledon has enabled us to increase those numbers. Last year showed an increase on the previous year, and this year, I hope, will show an increase on last year. Of course, I would wish that we could train or give training or offer training to a great many more. But there, again, it is a question of money. When the hon. Gentleman calls attention to the fact that the fee is now 7s. 6d., I
would remind him that that 7s. 6d. comes into the Estimates as an Appropriation-in-Aid, and it enables us to have more men under training without a greater expense to the State, because they are paying a large proportion of their own training fees. I believe that they appreciate it. I believe that what is being done is as much as can be done at present. I would like to increase it, and whenever I get the chance, especially if I get the money, I will increase it. He may be quite sure of this, that there is no one in the War Office who is not sympathetic towards this movement, and there is no one who will not do everything he can to spread it.

Mr. LAWSON: I am
afraid that a wrong impression may be given by the right hon. Gentleman. I asked a question quite recently about the numbers being trained, and I think it will be found that the actual number being trained is round about 290. It is true that the Note says that the full scheme provides for 1,200 being trained annually at Chisledon, but I think it will be creating a wrong impression altogether —I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not doing that consciously—if he leads the House to believe that 1,200 men are being trained, when actually only 290 are being trained.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really want to clear up this matter. There were 1,440 last year, and it was an increase from 1,050 the year before. That is my first statement. Last year was greater than the year before. My second statement is, that the scheme will be in full operation this year, and when it is in full operation there will be room for 1,200 at Chisledon, 750 I think it was at Hounslow, and so on—the figures I gave just now. Last year—if he will look at the Estimates—I called attention to the fact that we were changing from Catterick to Chisledon, and I told the House then, that I only took money for the Chisledon scheme for six months, because

it was only then getting into operation. it is extending now, and when it is full it has 1,200 men.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask if there is to be any reply to the question I put with regard to the safety of human life? I am not asking the question for myself. I am simply asking for information in order to try to save the lives of some people. It does not matter whether the right hon. Gentleman replies or not, but if I cannot get an answer now, I shall endeavour later on.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not intentionally refuse to answer the hon. Gentleman. I will answer him. We do not use "Ethyl" at all.

Mr. HARDIE: That is what I asked.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We do not use it, and that is my answer. We have an experimental depot at Woolwich which is constantly experimenting with a view to finding means of saving human life, and finding methods which case our own people and at the same time improve their defence.

Question put, "That '153,500' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 129.

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[6.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Caine, Gordon Hall
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Campbell, E. T.
England, Colonel A.


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Carver, Major W. H.
Ersklne, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Finburgh, S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Forrest, W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Charteris, Brigadler-General J.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astor, Maj. Hn. John j.(Kent,Dover)
Christie, J. A.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Atkinson, C.
Clarry, Reginald George
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clayton, G. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gates, Percy


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cooper, A. Duff
Goff, Sir Park


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Gower, Sir Robert


Bennett, A. J.
Couper, J. B.
Grace, John


Berry, Sir George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bethel, A.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Blundell, F. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Guest, Capt. Rt Hon. F. E.(Bristol,N.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnabro)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hanbury, C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harland, A.


Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N' th' l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Buchan, John
Dawson, sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Drewe, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hendarson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Hills, Major John Waller
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (St eatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hilton, Cecil
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nelson, Sir Frank
Storry-Deans, R.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oakley, T.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,G.)
Penny, Frederick George
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G, (Dumbarton)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pilcher, G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waddington, R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warner Brigadier-General W. W.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ralne, Sir Walter
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Loder, J. de V.
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Long, Major Eric
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wells, S. R.


Lougher, Lewis
Remnant, Sir James
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rye, F. G.
Withers, John James


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Meller, R. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Meyer, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Skelton, A. N.
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, T.
Palln, John Henry


Baker, Walter
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiflery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barr, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Briant, Frank
Hayes, John Henry
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundes)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayi and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scurr, John


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Cape. Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth T.
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N' thampton)
Tomilnson, R. P.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Townend, A. E.


Glbbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Graham, Rt. Hon- Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.




Wallhead, Richard C.
Welsh, J. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Westwood, J.
Wilson,R. J. (Jarrow)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wiggins, William Martin
Wright, W.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — REPORT [12TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — AIR, ESTIMATES, 1928.

1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,401,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,711,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,567,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

Captain GUEST: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that on Monday, 12th March, it was impossible for the Secretary of State for Air to answer several very important points of principle, notably with regard to civil aviation, which had been raised on the Motion that you do leave the Chair. May I also remind you that you suggested to the Secretary of State that he should deal upon the Committee stage of Vote A with certain questions which had been raised in the pre-

vious Debate, but that, owing to the strict application of the Rules of Order by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it proved impossible for the Secretary of State to give such a reply. Lastly, may I remind you that a number of hon. Members feel that the question of civil aviation is a most important one and that unless you are willing to allow a more general discussion on the Report stage of these Votes, they will be deprived of all opportunity of obtaining the Government's reply upon what they consider a vital question. I respectfully ask you, therefore, whether you will on this occasion allow a more general discussion to take place, especially in view of the fact that the details of the Votes now under consideration were discussed on the Committee stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it will meet the case if I take the same course on Vote A of the Air Estimates that I have taken earlier to-day on the similar Vote for the Army. I understand that that will meet the views of hon. Members, and, if so, I propose to follow that course, which will allow the latitude which the hon. and gallant Member desires.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out "32,500," and to insert instead thereof "32,400."
I move this Token Vote to reduce the force by 100 men in order to give the Secretary of State an opportunity of answering the various questions put by hon. and right hon. Members on the Committee stage. I particularly want him to answer one point which I raised, in addition to the question of civil aviation, on which I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North (Captain Guest). The question with which I would like him to deal is this; Who is responsible for the defence of merchant ships at sea against aircraft? Is it a matter for the Admiralty or the Air Ministry, and what are the arrangements made to meet that threat in the unfortunate event of a future war?

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain CAZALET: I should like to ask the Secretary of State certain questions, all of which were touched upon in the Debate last week, and to preface them by a few observations. A Debate on the Air Estimates is always of peculiar interest to specialists and amateurs in aircraft, for this very important reason, that when we vote money for the Air Estimates we can feel that we are not necessarily voting money which will be spent on something that will destroy or be destroyed. Whatever the particular inventions may be, and they come along regularly every year in the science of aviation, whether it be a question of speed, carrying capacity, landing facilities or an increase in the margin of safety, one feels that although these inventions aim on the one hand to be of great use from the military point of view, on the other they may bring immense advantages to civilisation generally. Every year the old quotation becomes truer, that:
Air power to be effective and permanent must be based on sound economic developments for peace purposes, and that on any other basis its maintenance must be artificial and superficial in times of peace.
Compared with any other form of armament, aircraft is relatively economical. Take, for instance, the campaign in the spring of 1925. The whole campaign cost £76,000 and two persons were killed on our side and 11 on the side of our opponents. The result of that campaign was that all the tribes came in and agreed to what was considered necessary. Compare that with the campaign which took place in 1921 and which cost £476,000 per month. I am not suggesting that the two occasions were analogous, because I understand that at that time there were not half a dozen aeroplanes in India that could leave the ground.
I should like to pay my humble meed of tribute to the work which the Air Force has done in Iraq. I was privileged to see something of it myself, and I do most sincerely believe that if we had tried to carry out our mandate to preserve law and order in that country by any other means except through the Air Force it would have cost us many additional millions of money and many additional lives as well. Take one other instance, the flight to Australia the other day in an aeroplane which cost only £700. The whole expenses of that flight were
less than £50. I want to ask the Secretary of State for Air certain questions in regard to the power of aeroplanes to attack naval craft. It is generally admitted that the power of attack in regard to aeroplanes has greatly exceeded the power of defence. Anti-aircraft guns in the present stage of development are a very inadequate form of protection. It has been described as trying to shoot a lark with a rifle on a cloudy day. In the United States of America very comprehensive and exhaustive experiments have been carried out in regard to the power of attack of aeroplanes on battleships of all kinds, and the conclusion which the Committee which dealt with the matter came to was as follows:
As a result of the experiments it is the opinion of the Committee that under proper conditions aeroplanes can put out of commission or sink any naval craft afloat. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to build any type of naval craft of sufficient strength to withstand the destructive power of the largest bombs which aeroplanes may be able to carry from a shore base or sheltered harbour.
There are experts who say that our Fleet to-day would be totally incapable of defending this country from a knock-out blow delivered by a land base air force, and equally incompetent to protect our food supplies against an air attack on the vessels bringing them to this country. We have no Minister of Defence in this country to whom questions of this kind can be addressed, and, therefore, it is reasonable to ask the Secretary of State for Air for an answer. I should like to know what experiments have been made in regard to smoke screens. In a recent book an amazing description is given of a smoke screen of 10 square miles and 50 to 100 feet thick caused by 100 aeroplanes a thousand feet high. Have we made any experiments on these lines? What is the power of the latest form of explosive in bombs as against the latest form of armament? It is maintained that a mishit from a bomb may do equal if not more damage than a direct hit. What is the power of destruction of a bomb dropped within 50 yards of the propeller of a battleship?
Again, what developments have been taking place in regard to aerial torpedoes? I understand that the degree of accuracy which has now been reached up to distances of five or six miles is very remarkable indeed. I want to know what experiments we have been making. What
have we spent? What co-operation is there between the Admiralty and the Air Force? After all, an aeroplane may cost £700, or at the most £7,000, whilst a battleship costs nearly a thousand times as much, and surely it is high time that experiments were made and constant communications ensured between the two Departments, the Admiralty and the Air Force, as to the latest experiments on these lines. One cannot forget that in this country we spent £40,000,000 upon our roads before we spent a single pound to try and find out what was the best surface with which to cover them. I hope the Secretary of State will reply to the constructive proposition put forward by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) in regard to short-service pilots. I desire to say something on almost identically the same lines as the right hon. Member for North Bristol. If you could insist that every plane run by Imperial Airways should carry not one qualified pilot and one wireless specialist but two trained pilots upon all occasions, it would not only add to the safety of the passengers but would provide those pilots which we require in this country, and would remedy what is generally admitted to be the unsatisfactory conditions which govern short-service pilots to-day.
One final matter, and that is in regard to the development of aircraft combined with the development of the Empire. It is quite clear that commercial aviation will probably never be a financial success in this country owing to the shortness of distances between important places. People will all prefer to travel by train from London to Birmingham or Edinburgh rather than go by air, although there will be occasions when samples can be brought by air in much shorter time than by train. But, on the whole, I do not think commercial aviation has much of a future in this country. It seems to me however that it is of vital importance in the development of certain parts of the Empire. There are large tracts in Australia to-day which have been entirely developed by the use of the aeroplane. Obviously, it is uneconomic to lay down roads or railways for the benefit of a very small section of the community. You can take the produce which the settlers grow along rough tracks drawn by bullocks or horses, there is no necessity for speed, but the important thing is
that you should be able to bring the settlers once a week to some centre of civilisation, which may be anything from a barber's shop to a cinema.
Take again those vast areas in Canada. What a godsend during the long winter months for the settlers to know that once a week an aeroplane will go by which they can get to the nearest centre of civilisation. This entirely excludes what are called health and healing planes, that is, those aeroplanes which take patients to hospital for certain operations and which bring doctors to the bedside of an invalid, when if he had to take the ordinary means of transport he would probably arrive too late. Finally, in West Africa I know of a settler who employs in the management of his ranch three aeroplanes, and instead of taking 8½ hours to get to Nairobi he can do it in 40 minutes. He says that it is a definite economy in the management of his estate to employ aeroplanes. I hope the old tag, that civil aviation must fly by itself, will not be too literally interpreted in the future by the Secretary of State. It is only by a judicious and generous treatment by the Secretary of State of civil aviation that we can get an adequate and efficient air force which, in my opinion, is essential both in peace and war to the prosperity and future of our Empire.

7.0 p.m.

Captain GUEST: Your ruling, Sir, has enabled us to travel over a wider ground than we should have been able to do otherwise, and I think it will be of assistance and advantage to the Secretary of State as well as to many of us. I have to make an apology to the Secretary of State for my absence on Monday evening when he was replying to the Debate, but I had been informed by the Chairman that the subjects which had been referred to could not receive a reply, and I trust, therefore, that he will acquit me of any discourtesy in the matter. Various points have been touched upon by hon. Members in the course of the Debate, and one must have noticed that there is a general feeling throughout the House that this Department which is still in its infancy is full of intense possibilities, and that the Secretary of State would find a very willing House behind him if he asked for more cash, or, if he did not ask for more cash, if he tried a rearrangement
of expenditure on the fighting Services with his colleagues in the Cabinet.
This evening I want to refer more especially to civil aviation. Although I know that the Treasury is the chief obstacle with which the Secretary of State has to wrestle, I would like to remind him that his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1920, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was responsible for the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman now presides, put down in his mind that £1,000,000 a year should be devoted to civil aviation. That was more or less the position, although the money was not spent, in the year when I became Secretary for Air. I remember, in 1922, asking for a civil aviation programme which I hoped would be far-reaching, but it was found impossible to produce a programme which involved more than £420,000. I was very keen as to the possibilities of the air in those days, but, not having very far-seeing plans of my own, I let it go by default. When you think that six years later the total amount spent in this country on civil aviation is only £260,000 a year, there must be some truth in the saying that there appears to be no civil aviation policy at all. During the last nine or 10 years, if you study the Estimates, so far as I can make out, this country has not spent more than £1,500,000 or £1,750,000 in civil aviation.
If it be a fact that there are great policies boiling in the mind of the Director-General of Civil Aviation and generating in the heart of the Secretary of State, if it be the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stops them, then this House, when it has thoroughly grasped the situation and realised the pathetic figure we spend in comparison with other countries, will come to the support of the Secretary of State in no uncertain manner. In order to do so, the House must be apprised of these comparative figures. Although it is unpleasant to quote figures, it is vital that they should be disproved if they are wrong and accepted if they are right. I was working out the mileage flown by Germany last year, and it is nearly 4,000,000 miles. In France the mileage
was 3,200,000, and in Great Britain only 800,000. There is another figure which shows the way in which the air sense of other countries is going ahead of our own, and which is obtained from accurate sources. It is the number of passengers carried on the German commercial planes last year. The figure is 187,000. Some of them were long journeys and some short journeys. The figure in this country is only from 22,000 to 25,000. The disparity is too great, and I am satisfied that something more could be done when one judges the lack of policy by these figures.
The question of subsidies has been much debated in this House, and I know that there are two schools of thought. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), who has just sat down, reminded us that some people think that civil aviation must fly by itself and that the policy of subsidies generally is a vicious one. Those who oppose the subsidy policy must pause and reconsider their point of view, because if you do not subsidise you will drop back and allow other countries who do subsidise to go so far ahead that you will not catch them up. They have been developing their routes with many thousands of flying persons per month. They have developed a flying sense with which we shall find it extremely hard to catch up. I do not want in any words that I may use to suggest that this is a potential military danger. There was a speech on Monday last from these benches by one hon. and gallant Member who said, "you may take it which way you like. You may discuss the subject, and say the aeroplane is more valuable as a peaceful weapon, but it is no good maintaining, if trouble does occur, that it could not be used as a most deadly weapon." Therefore, if other countries are going ahead in the production of machines and with flying, there is no doubt that they would be capable in a few weeks or months, of turning them into very dangerous weapons of attack.
I pass to two or three other considerations which I think are fundamental to the formation of a real, national policy of civil aviation. The first one has been most ably described to the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just
sat down. It is that the success of the activities of any company in far off lands like Australia, the East, Africa, or in any of the great wide Dominions attached to the Empire, must not be gauged by the percentage of profit to the company or by what is paid for freight or the number of passengers carried. The success of the operations must be gauged by the gradual development of the settler and the meeting of his needs by this method of rapid transport. It may be years before the company can ever get 6d. back on its money, but in 10 years' time you would have homes, families, and cultivated land in these wide territories which would bring you back from your Empire an immense return both in men, materials, and happiness. The little money needed from the State to subsidise air lines to Africa or Australia is a fraction compared with the valuable results which would be achieved.
There is another consideration of rather a different nature, which is somewhat debatable, and upon which I should like to have the opinion of the Secretary of State. The particular difficulty with which we are faced in this country is that we are, so to speak, at the end of everything. We are a very small country, and we are not on the way to anywhere in particular. We cannot get to Europe without crossing a somewhat hazardous Channel. I am not sure that we have quite the right conception of the centre of the Empire. It is true that wealth has accumulated in London, but, from the point of view of rapid transport for the Empire, the value of which is not denied, perhaps it would be better if our Croydon was in Egypt and if some more central spot was chosen from which this great aerial activity could take place. That is just a suggestion—not entirely new—but one which is put forward and which may have more in it than meets the eye.
There is one other point in this connection. We are very obviously a seaplane Power, or should be. We have to cross the ocean almost within 50 or 60 miles of our capital, and in order to get to our far-flung Dependencies large tracts of water have to be crossed. Every time anyone flies in an aeroplane across the sea, particularly when he cannot see across them, it is undoubtedly facing a very considerable, if not a serious, risk.
It is not that a boat or seaplane is an absolute safeguard. The weather may be too rough and may sink any small craft, but I am perfectly convinced that, if you take a chart of the average day of the average year, there would not be perhaps more than 20 per cent. of the days on which a really well-planned, well-designed and well-constructed seaplane could not land. I have an idea that the accident which brought some of those who attempted to cross the Atlantic down was a very simple one and that if they had made the attempt in boats sufficiently powerful and large to carry the petrol required it is quite likely that they would have come down and done what was necessary to put the engine right and then have gone on again with greater safety than has been the case up till now. It is for that reason that shipping must be linked up with air services, and the only form of air service which can be linked up with shipping is the seaplane service. I would like to see at Southampton a seaplane base run under the auspices of the Civil Aviation Department. I would like to see it with ships and seaplanes as part of one service. I crossed the other day with the director of one of the big lines in Europe, and he wired at once to his firm to send a plane to meet him at Cherbourg. It struck me at once that he thereby saved 12 or 14 hours of laborious train journey and changes. A shipping and seaplane service at one time or another should be thought out in the form of a direct link.
There is one other point, and that is the question of the freedom of the air. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can tell us a little more about it. Why is there the difficulty in the Persian section? That great route which ought to be available to us between Basra and Karachi is not really available. There may be some diplomatic reason, but I have half an idea that it is parsimony. I believe, if we had been ready to put our hands in our pockets to pay for our way leave or air leave, we should have got it. I do not think that we should be denied any kind of permission to cross any other country because of the lack of reasonable expenditure. Other speakers have supported the contention that I made on Monday that the convertibility and inter-dependence of civil and military aviation were becoming more and more proved. The suggestion
I made that the short service commission term might be readjusted with a view to stimulating a longer period of activity in the air than is possible to the present officer will, I hope, receive some thought from the Ministry.
In conclusion, I should like to mention the national need of a permanent, assured and prosperous aircraft industry. The proposals which we have suggested to the Secretary of State, namely, a really bold expenditure and an elaborate Imperial civil air route development, will give you what you will find you need most if trouble ever comes, an assured, prosperous and well-employed aircraft industry. There is an argument in favour of it which will appeal to the benches on my right. The numbers and class of men employed in the aircraft factories are greater per object produced than in any other trade or industry. The number of men whose skill is needed in producing that wonderful piece of mechanism, the aeroplane, is vast as compared with either the value or the size of the aeroplane. It seems to me that, when you are discharging men from dockyards and cutting down naval construction programmes, there is a chance of re-employing and re-engaging men who are practically of a similar type of skill and experience, or who, if they have not got that, would learn it very rapidly indeed. We want numbers of machines and money from the State to assist us to catch up, and, if he does that, the Secretary of State will be remembered not only as a great Secretary of State in handling the military side of his Department but for having given us a little stimulus to civil aviation.

Mr. ROSE: I am afraid that the persistence, the respectful persistence, with which I have pursued a certain phase of the Air Ministry and its operations has caused a misapprehension in the minds of my fellow Members generally. They seem to be under the impression that I am setting myself up as a technical expert or authority. Technical science is not for me. I am just an old-fashioned wheelwright pattern maker. I always thought, when I approached the subject of the modern expert, that he was comparable very largely to the late Sir William Gilbert's fabulous man who was born old and grew
young. It seems to me that most of the modern experts, particularly those of the Cardington school, commenced their technical education by going backwards and that they have not got as far back as the A B C. That is where I have got, a pull on them. I know the rudiments, and they do not. At least, if they do they do not make any use of their knowledge. I have raised this question for a good many years. For a year or two, I raised a question in respect to something which was called a helicopter. That was a remarkable attempt to achieve the impracticable with an impossible contrivance, and I said so. We spent £70,000 on that thing. It was called a helicopter, but it never copt, it only flopped.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), who was good enough to make some observations upon the speech which I made last Monday week, said that I had told a story which was nothing new and was all stale. I know, but it is not the only old story which is true. I would remind him that the story of life is much older than even the Royal Navy, but it is none the less true because it is old. I have never attempted to address this House on a subject, however ignorant I may have been on it, in which I was not convinced that I was telling the truth. The hon. and gallant Member came out with some of his own experiences. He said that he was in charge of the construction of an airship at Barrow. He seemed to be quite proud of it. If I had been in charge of it, I should not have thought it anything to write to mother about. He went on to say:
When the 'Mayfly' was wrecked, I showed a distinguished admiral the wreck. He had never seen an airship before, and he remarked, 'The work of a lunatic.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1928; col. 1581, Vol. 214.]
I understand from inquiries made subsequently that that distinguished admiral is dead.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I do not think it is quite fair to take a portion of my speech without reading the rest of it.

Mr. ROSE: I am going to read some more, but I cannot read it all at once. I suggest that the decease of that distinguished
admiral was a sore loss to the Admiralty. However, the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford went on to make some discursive and totally irrelevant remarks about this business. He has been extolling—I have no doubt on good grounds—the use of the airship as an instrument of war. It appears to be the only defence he offers for it. But that has nothing to do with the question which is before the House now or which was before us in the last Debate. Will the House remember that this airship scheme is avowedly, absolutely and exclusively, commercial in its purpose. Nobody has ever suggested that the two ships which are now being built—one of them is almost commenced, and the other one is probably nearly half finished—are for other than commercial purposes. They were to be used exclusively for such purposes and when the House endorsed this scheme they did not endorse a scheme for military aviation, or for any military or naval auxiliary or accessory. Therefore, it seems absurd that criticism offered by those who object to the application of craft of this kind to commercial purposes, should be met by the argument that the ships will be of some use in war. If that argument were analysed it would probably be found that they would not be much more use in war than they are likely to be in civil aviation. As a matter of fact, all the airships used by us during the War were either semi-rigid or nonrigid, and not one of them had more than 750,000 cubic feet capacity.
I have been trying to get some parallel which will bring to the mind of non technical Members of this House an idea of the proportions of these ships. Twelve times the length of this Chamber from door to door—that is their length —and three times its height from floor to ceiling is their measured diameter. Could I bring it closer to the conception of the House by saying that the whole mass of the Parliament buildings, including Westminster Hall and every tower and every projection, has a total cubic content of 10,250,000 feet, and these two ships will occupy the space of the whole of these buildings? Not one of the ships built or projected as yet, with the possible exception of the monster that Germany is said to be building now —and it is only 3,500,000 feet—has more
than half the capacity of these ships. And the distinguished Admiral said that this "was the work of a lunatic." Let us see what we have done since the War in this connection—and remember that all the talent and all the virtues of the Air Minister have been brought to bear on these subjects. R.33 cost £350,000, and she flew for 800 hours and burst. R.34 cost £350,000 and burst. R.35 cost £75,000 and burst before she was inflated. R.36 cost £350,000, flew for 97 hours, and burst. R.37 cost £350,000 and was never completed. R.38 cost £500,000. She was built at Cardington, and they always charge more at Cardington, and she flew for 70 hours and burst. R.39 cost £90,000 and was never finished. She was scrapped and used as a stress test. Rs.40 cost £275,000, flew for 73 hours and burst. The total for eight ships is £2,340,000, and the total flying time 1,540 hours. Yet some outrageous miscreants continue to say that this "was the work of a lunatic." I am afraid my vocabulary is limited to the point of inadequacy, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hertford, who is an old sailor, would be able to help me in that respect. Let us come a little closer to the details of this question.
I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that in replies to various questions, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has said, more than once, that the cost of the Cardington ship will be £400,000. I must offer to the right hon. Gentleman and the House a humble apology for having made a misstatement in my last speech on this subject. I said the Cardington ship was to cost £400,000 and that therefore the cost would be £20,000 per pay load ton. That is quite wrong, and I wish to correct it now. The cost is going to be a great deal more. In the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has issued—printed on green paper, obviously to suit the vision of His Majesty's faithful Commons at Estimate time—he gives details of the cost of this particular ship, and I find he has spent, or will spend if the House grants this money, £229,000 on material, £65,000 on shop labour, £35,000 on drawing office labour—or designing labour as he terms it—and £80,000 for overhead charges. That is a total for the airship itself of
£409,000. Then there is the power plant chargeable to this particular ship, which amounts to £35,000. In addition, two engines which were made for experimental purposes are going to be utilised and their value is assessed at £16,000, making a total of £460,000 for a ship which has hardly been begun, which has been in hand now for four years, but cannot, by any possibility, take the air this year if it does so next year or ever. Thus £460,000 of the taxpayers' money has gone or will go in this scheme—and somebody has said "it is the work of a lunatic."
There is one phase of this subject which I would impress on the House. The Ministry's experts are beginning to navigate an element which is almost unknown to man, an element which has to be investigated, which has to be dared, which has to be humoured. After all, mechanical science can only move within the ambit of natural laws. I have told the House how big are these ships, and now let us have regard to their construction. They consist of a flimsy framework of metal; inside that are a number of goldbeaters' skin balloonets. Everybody knows, or ought to know, that you cannot get big pieces of goldbeaters' skin. It is made out of part of the intestine of an ox, and about the largest piece we can get would be about 100 inches in area. Hundreds of thousands of these skins have to be stuck on to this fabric, and that is all—that is the thing on which, when it has been filled with hydrogen gas, the ship depends for buoyancy and security, and it has to convey from itself enormous stresses on to the girder work of the ship. Outside the girder work there is a skin of doped linen. Never mind about technique at all. Just let hon. Members think that this mass of flimsiness and all it contains, living and inert, must weigh less than the avoirdupois weight of the volume of air it displaces. What chance can there be of these things lasting? I do not say for a moment that the ship will not cross the Atlantic. I do not say that some fine morning when it does not rain, and there is no wind, they will not get one of these ships out of its shed, but of all the contrivances man has ever thought or dreamt of, surely this is the most fantastic! It is not new either. As the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford
has said, this is all old, because these are not ships at all. They are dirigible balloons, and ballooning is 150 years old.
When this business was started, it was started under these conditions. When the right hon. Gentleman was previously in office he had tacitly accepted a scheme known as the Burney scheme. That scheme was to build six of these ships by a private company for £4,600,000, in addition to which that company was to take over the whole of our property at Cardington at a peppercorn rent. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition came into office, this scheme was presented for signature, but it was, very properly, turned down. My complaint against him and his advisers then was that they ought to have turned it down entirely and not chipped a corner off it and kept that. Except that the dimensions are smaller, the project today is as preposterous as it was then. See the conditions that Parliament sanctioned. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact, that his criticism of the present scheme was not because it was foolish, but because it was not foolish enough. They were to have £1,200,000 and no more; the thing was all to be finished and the ships in flying order for their trials in three years, four years ago. He has already spent £820,000, or two-thirds of his allowance, on the construction of two ships, neither of which is finished. He is building mooring masts in connection with the same scheme, at £50,000 apiece, and he will want a great many more airsheds than he has, even to accommodate the two ships, for these things cannot always come to a mooring mast. If there is anything wrong with their outer cover they cannot be repaired at a mooring mast, but only in an air shed, and it is a worse job getting them into a shed than it is getting them out of one.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to remember certain natural facts in connection with the air. It is estimated, and competently estimated, that every year there are 16,000,000 thunderstorms in the world, that is, 44,000 daily, chiefly in the Tropics, and if he will read the log of the R.34 and the evidence that was given in the inquiry into the loss of the "Shenandoah," he will realise that electric zones, unforeseen, unforeseeable, generating not in hours nor in days, but in minutes, are accompanied,
besides thunder and lightning, by what is known as vertical winds. I do not know how many of the heavier-than-air aviators have been brought down and killed—nobody knows—but that airships are absolutely unmanageable and uncontrollable in vertical winds is a simple fact. You cannot control them. They could not control the "Shenandoah," which was an up-to-date ship, built on the right principles, with the correct streamline, by experts who had been at the game for 25 years in Germany. She got across the Atlantic very much more easily than did our R.34, but here is an extract from the log of the Rs.34:
The thunderstorms were awful. First, she stood on her tail, then shot up hundreds of feet, and fell back again almost into the water.
The men had to live and sleep and eat and drink with their parachutes on them. When the German ship went across, she took 84 hours, but it took this one 108 hours. She carried almost nothing but her crew, who were specially dressed in light clothing, and the barest rations of food, but what else did she have to carry? This is the trouble with all your long-distance flying, that you have not a base to come down to in order to re-fuel, and there are none in the Atlantic. The difficulty, therefore, is the enormous weight of petrol with which you have to start. The "Shenandoah," which was then the Z.R.3, went across and carried with her 27 tons of petrol. Her engine power was less than half that of these two ships of ours, and her capacity was just about half. She actually used, in 80 hours, 23 tons of her petrol, and when the Rs.34 crossed, she got there with 20 minutes' petrol left. This is the sort of risk that is being run now.
I have nothing to say against this aviation. I have my own opinions about it, and I do not express any cocksure view of it, but I do not think it will ever be a commercial success. I think it will be a rapid and luxurious mode of travel some day for very rich people, but that it will ever carry much weight, I doubt. Still, I do not know. I come from a long line of engineers. I am an engineer myself. and I love my calling and am inclined sometimes to dream quite radiant dreams of what the possibilities of the future may be. I do not know how time will justify what I am saying, but I do not believe you will
conquer the air with internal-combustion engines. I believe that sometime, by somebody, in the future, we shall be able to enchain some mighty radio-active force, of which we know little or nothing now, and put it to the use of mankind, and then many things may happen that are perhaps beyond our dreams to-day, but when I come to consider this particular phase of the question I am in doubt. The House, I am sure, will pardon me harping on it, because I am not doing it, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, for any personal reason or in any spirit antagonistic either to him or to the Government—everyone in this House knows how little I care about party qua party—and I am only raising this question, and persisting in it, because I have a solemn and certain conviction in my mind that it is a waste of public time and of more precious human efforts, and that it may be unnecessarily wasteful of the most precious element of all, namely, human life.
The right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, inflated with a sense of his responsibility. Let me remind him that he is not the first Samuel in history who has bad a call from above. Let me warn him that he must not misinterpret all the messages he gets. I am afraid that he allows his experts to tell him things they do not know themselves. I never think of a modern expert and of men like the Cardington School experts, without being reminded of the observation made by Mr. Perkin Middlewick, the retired butterman, in Byron's comedy of "Our Boys." When he smelt the empty eggshells on Mrs. Patchem's breakfast table, he remarked, "Ah, shop'uns, 16 for a shilling; I knows 'em." I am inclined, to think that a good many of his experts are only charlatans. I do not think the experts who advised him to go on with a certain helicopter, nor the experts who are telling him now to persist in this scheme, are experts in any scientific or proper acceptation of the term. Higher, much higher, than the roof of the Cardington air shed, much wiser, much truer, than all the brass-hatted charlatanry in the world, towers the immutable and majestic law by which the Creator has designed and established the universe. It is the law whereby He guides and governs us, and it is a law that will abide, in
spite of Cardington and of Adastral House, when the sun is cold and the stars are old.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I listened last week to the very excellent and well-informed speech with which the Minister for Air introduced his Estimates, and I think that each year his speech becomes more interesting and gives us a better idea of the excellent work which the Air Force is doing. We all realise that the task of the Minister for Air is more difficult even than those of the other two Fighting Services. The Minister for Air has a new force, with new problems, and he has to tackle them in a way which is totally different from the methods of the other two Fighting Services. However we may criticise these Estimates and the work of the Ministry, we all feel that the esprit de corps of the Air Force is magnificent, and we want to congratulate the Air Minister upon the wonderful progress he has made with the Force and the great efficiency to which he has brought it. Those are things of which every Member of this House must be proud, and they have been done largely while the right hon. Gentleman has presided over this Ministry. We congratulate him, and we hope that his work will be continued for some time, and when the history of the Air Force comes to be written in the future, I feel that the present Minister will be given a great share of credit for the work which has been put into the organisation of the Force.
I hope, however, that the Minister will not feel, from some of the speeches that have been made, that everything is right with the Air Force. Some hon. Members have spoken about economy, and I think that the Minister has been badly served on the financial side of his work. One cannot read the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee without feeling that we want a stronger force to look after the financial side of the Air Ministry. If the Minister is going to be let down, it is not on the flying side, we know, but I think it will be on the financial side, by the people who control the very large amount of money that is voted by this House for the Air Ministry. You cannot blame the Commanding Officer of any unit for getting every possible allowance that the
Regulations permit. The keener the officer the keener he is to get every possible advantage for his own men to assist in making them more efficient. One does not mind that. It is part of the tradition of each of the Services. A Commanding Officer will do the best for each of his men. But this spirit of extravagance pervades the whole of the Air Force. Possibly it is a remnant of the War. We did things on a very extravagant scale in the War.
The Air Force has never been slow to find out anything that is to its advantage in the way of extra pay and allowances. I think someone must have delved into the other two Services to the utmost extent to discover anything that could be extracted to the advantage of the Air Force, and it has been included in the Regulations. We found on the Estimates Committee that the Air Force found in some deep Regulation that they could get hard-lying money. We turned this up in the Regulation and found that the Air Force were putting in claims for hard-lying money. Some member of the Committee, who was not a Naval man, asked who was doing the lying and who was paid for it? I believe this allowance is now eliminated from the Service. I do not blame all these officers in command of units for getting all they can, but I say that it is the duty of the permanent officials of the Air Ministry to see that officers get only what is proper, and that all the expensive and luxurious ideas are cut down to the greatest possible limit.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest) made an excellent and critical speech last week. We expected him to make a speech of that sort, because he is not only a flying man and a practical man, but he has had great experience at the Air Ministry. One of the points referred to in that speech I want to mention now, and that relates to the reserve of pilots. The expansion of the Air Force in time of war will depend wholly upon the rate at which we train and supply pilots to man the machines. On a declaration of war reserve pilots will be wanted at once, and if the Force is to be used properly a sufficient number of reserve pilots must be ready to take their places in the Force. The Minister would be failing in his responsibility if he imperilled the lives of people
by not having the Air Force efficient, and it cannot be efficient in the event of war unless we have sufficient reserve pilots to fill the vacancies caused by the casualties which will occur almost at once. In the Debate last week
it was said that the next war may possibly be decided before either the Army or the Navy can get into touch with the enemy. If that be the case it will be the Air Force that will have first to come into contact with the enemy.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to civil aviation. You cannot substitute civil aviation for military aviation; one must be complementary to the other. Civil aviation ought to be extended in this country at a far more rapid rate than that at which it is being extended now. Civil aviation will help military aviation in great measure. There is a very good simile in the Mercantile Marine Service. In the War the Mercantile Marine Service was of the greatest assistance to the Navy. So civil aviation, if used in the proper way, may be of the greatest assistance to the Air Force in providing pilots. The system which is in operation now in the Mercantile Marine might be carried on in a modified way in the Air Force. The pilots of civil aviation should have special training with the Air Force, so that they will know not only civil work but will get the benefit of the military training of the Air Force. They would then be in a position similar to that of the Royal Naval Reserve, who come up each year for training with the Navy. If these civil pilots were subsidised there would be a possibility of a very large number of thoroughly efficient reserve pilots being obtained at a cheaper rate, and in the event of war they could take their places in the Air Force.
I want to say a few words about light aeroplane clubs. We are very grateful to ethe Minister for his sympathetic and practical help of these clubs. I see in the Estimates that the right hon. Gentleman is providing an improved subsidy this year. He has extended the number of clubs to 13, and he promises them a maximum subsidy of £2,000 a year per club. But I see that he has allowed for only £16,000 in the Estimates; instead of the £26,000 maximum which could be obtained he has estimated that only £16,000 will be required. I hope that
this part of his Estimates will prove to be wholly wrong and that the whole of the money will be claimed by the clubs. I regard this economy as wrongly applied economy, and it is probably the only instance in the Estimates. In this new civil force of the light aeroplane clubs the Minister is getting a splendid lot of men for the Air Force at a very small cost. We must remember that the short service commissioned officer of the Air Force costs £2,000 a year. Against that the civil pilot, trained to get his licensed certificate "A,'' obtains a grant of only £50. I realise that he is not a militarily trained man, but he has learnt the elements of flying and control, which can be developed further when he is trained by the Air Force subsequently.
I would liken the work that is being done by these patriotic and sporting flying men of the light aeroplane clubs to the position of the Volunteers in preTerritorial days. Many of these Volunteers for years patriotically paid for their arms, equipment and clothing, and prepared themselves to fight for their country in the event of their being required. In these light aeroplane clubs the men are paying for their own flying and their own club, and the only subsidy they get is £50 a year upon gaining their licences. I hope that the Minister will continue to look favourably on this work. It is really good work. It provides pilots who have a sense of the air, and it provides a great number of these at a very small cost. Beyond that, it does a great deal of good locally by accustoming the people to the use of the aeroplane. The right hon. Gentleman's experience at the University shows him that many of the younger and sporting members are quite keen on flying and on gaining their pilots' certificates.
I would mention as an instance the Bristol and Wessex Aeroplane Club. That club, of which I have the honour to be President, is only nine months old. Yet it has produced already 18 certificated pilots, and 11 of those 18 had never used or handled a machine nine months ago. If this sort of thing is developed a great asset to the Air Force will be gained by such training of pilots in light aeroplanes. This Bristol Club has now four aeroplanes of its own, besides a private aeroplane owned by one of the
members. It has 154 members, and during the nine months has flown 428 hours, which is an extraordinary total within so short a period.

Mr. ROSE: That is £2 an hour.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Very cheap too, and the members pay for it themselves. The Government are not paying for this. I want the Minister to consider giving every support to these clubs, which are going to be of the greatest assistance to him. He should encourage them by letting the Air Force give them assistance and displays and instructions. One other point that I want to touch on relates to the Cadet College at Cranwell. I see by the Estimates that the new building for the Cadet College is to cost £260,000. The Minister tells us very glibly that hon. Members will have an opportunity of talking about this in years to come, and that at the present time he is asking for only £10,000 towards the total of £260,000. If the Air Ministry estimates anything at £260,000, we can safely double it and call it £500,000. One remembers that the Air Ministry built small houses with two bedrooms and a small sitting room at a cost of £561, exclusive of all external work. It is possible from that figure to see what the Air Ministry can charge in comparison with the Minister of Health in building small houses. Before the right hon. Gentleman asks for £10,000 and then gradually proceeds to build a college, we should know what is the whole extent of the scheme. It will be too late next year, when this £10,000 has been spent, and probably another £50,000, to discuss whether or not we shall have this college. The Minister might have given more details to us, and not merely have said in a footnote that the £10,000 is put there as a start and that we can discuss the scheme in years to come.
I tremble to think what the cost of these cadets will be after we have a college of this sort. Members of the Estimate Committee who dealt with all the expenditure at Cranwell know that the cadet mess is run more like a ducal establishment than an officers' mess or a cadets' mess even. The Minister will remember that the 116 cadets this year cost £580 each, not including flying costs.

Mr. ROSE: Cheap!

8.0 p.m.

Colonel WOODCOCK: If the hon. Member thinks it is cheap, I would ask him to compare it with Woolwich and Sandhurst or with a commercial university for engineering in this country. A figure of £330 was given in 1923 by the Minister as the future estimated cost of each cadet. The whole administrative cost of the college, the whole of the expenditure on these cadets is wrong in many ways, and gives the cadets a totally wrong idea of the standard of living. No officers' mess would ever countenance the expenditure that has been incurred on these cadets, and the extravagance of the Air Force generally in this direction. I hope the Minister will give his attention to the extravagance in which these cadets are being brought up; it is wholly unnecessary and not in keeping with the life they will have to lead in years to come. I trust that the Minister will realise that these criticisms we are making are made in a friendly way; and by a humble backbencher; I feel that we are all of the opinion that the Minister is handling the Air Force and its administration in a very capable manner. The economy we want
in the Air Force is the economy which means full value for the money that we vote in this House. The work of the aeroplane, both on the civil and military side, is in the future to be of great national value to this country. It is going to assist in solving the great Empire problem, probably more than anything else, by eliminating great distances, just in the same way that the different parts of the Empire were brought nearer when steamships took the place of sailing ships.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Every Member will agree that there is no more sincere colleague of ours than the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose), but he criticises the airships very harshly, and he has read out a whole chapter of accidents. He has informed the House that he is a trained engineer, and I have no doubt that he is a very skilled engineer, but may I ask him to remember the history of the submarine? From the first dive which I made in one of the Holland submarines until now, there have been a great many disasters. It would be a sorry tale that one had to tell if one tabulated them all, but the submarines of the Germans nearly brought this great nation to her knees in the Great War by sinking her food ships. The study of
airships shows that they can be of great value. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen took a sentence of mine, from a speech which I made in the Debate on the Air Estimates, and said that when I showed a distinguished admiral the wreck of the Mayfly at Barrow, the admiral said, "The work of a lunatic," and that the admiral had never seen an airship before. The hon. Member never quoted the rest of the speech in which I said that the work of the lunatics in Germany was of great value. Their airships kept the whole of the North Sea under observation during the War period, and when we laid a minefield, the German Zeppelins located it, with the result that it was swept up. Whenever we made a sweep with our battleships and cruisers in the North Sea, the Zeppelins reported to the Germans where our Fleet was. The morning after the Battle of Jutland, two Zeppelins told Admiral Scheer the position of the Grand Fleet, with the result that he knew where our ships were, and we were blind and did not know where their ships were. That was all the work of lunatics.
I will take the question away from the controversial side, and quote one or two opinions of the work of these airships. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen talks of commercial airships, but they can at any moment be turned into weapons of war for scouting purposes, and we must consider airships from the point of view of their value in war-time as well as in peace-time. I will quote a passage from Colonel Repington's book about airships. He said:
I asked about the dirigibles. David Beatty says that the enemy has still the monopoly of the best air scouting in good weather, when one Zeppelin can do as much as five or six cruisers. When the Grand Fleet came here from Scapa it was accompanied by some of the new small dirigibles. But David Beatty could not wireless to them as wireless masts were down during the move. They pitched and tossed a good deal but David Beatty hopes they may he of use some day. The large dirigibles have not yet come along and Beatty thinks that they have been messed about and people do not appreciate their importance even now!
We did not go on building airships after the disaster to the Mayfly, and the Grand Fleet were denied proper aerial scouts during the War. I do not think Lord Beatty would have spoken like this unless he had seen in what a great disadvantage
he was placed by having no aerial reconnaissance when the Germans in fine weather kept the whole North Sea under close observation with their naval Zeppelins. I will give the hon. Member the opinion of Lord Jellicoe. I take it that his opinion will be of some value when we are considering airships. He said:
The German Zeppelins as their number increased were of great assistance to the enemy for scouting, each one being in favourable weather equal to at least two light cruisers for such a purpose.
Then the hon. Member for North Aberdeen tells us that they are of no great value. I prefer rather to take the opinion of Lord Jellicoe and Lord Beatty than the opinions of the hon. Member. Another officer, interviewed by Colonel Repington, said this in 1916:
He did not think it could quite be said that the Zeppelins had no military effect, for they caused work to stop, held up the railway for 30 hours sometimes, and made all the workmen run home to look after their families.
The same officer went on to say that as the result of having no Zeppelins:
Our Navy was now blind, and the Germans had an enormous advantage over us. The Zeppelins could see up to 70 miles on a clear day, and whenever any of our ships put out, their numbers, type and course were immediately reported to Germany.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen might like references. The first comes from Colonel Repington's book, "The First World War," Volume 2, pages 13 and 14. That, from Lord Jellicoe is from his book, "The Grand Fleet," page 32. The hon. Member said that you could not repair the outer cover of an airship at a mooring mast. I had the Mayfly anchored at a mooring mast at Barrow-in-Furness for several days, and we made many repairs to the outer cover. He also talks about the impossibility of dealing with large numbers of gold-beater's skins. The Germans had thousands of goldbeater's skins in their gas bags, and used them successfully.

Mr. ROSE: I did not say it was impossible; I said it was a matter of considerable difficulty—not insuperable difficulty, possibly.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon if I misunderstood him. I thought he said that it was impossible to handle large numbers. It may be
difficult, but it is a matter than can easily be overcome; and the young women who used to be employed in building gas bags for our many airships, handled the gold-beater's skins with great skill, and they were successful in the Great War. I strongly resent the statement of the hon. Member that the experts are charlatans. These skilled aeronautical engineers are called upon to work hard; they are building up a great structure, and doing it for the service of the State. They have been ordered to do it, and it is very unfair that these experts, who are putting all their brains into the work, and all their time, should be called charlatans. I am certain that when the hon. Member reads his speech to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will retract that statement, and write to the experts and say that he regrets having made use of that expression.
Leaving airships, I ask the under-Secretary, as I asked last Monday, whether he will go into the question of the Atlantic flights in detail, and consult the Aero Club, and see if we cannot get greater control over those people who want to fly the Atlantic. There has been a disaster only lately, and I do ask again that the Air Minister and the Aero Club should insist, when people want to fly the Atlantic, that they have a proper medical certificate, that they understand something about compasses and navigation, that the machine be overhauled, that they have fabric floating bags put into the chassis, and that they carry wireless, if Possible. These points ought to be gone into. I feel very strongly about it; people ought not to be allowed to fly unless their machines are properly equipped. In the same way that we control ships at sea—we do not send them to sea unless they are properly equipped for navigation—we ought to have air machines and their equipment overhauled before people are allowed to fly.

Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: An hon. Member from the Opposition Benches has asked the following question; Why is there this continued increase in the one weapon, in the whole range of modern weapons, which is only useful for offensive purposes? Let me take the implication of the first part of the question, that the aeroplane is only
useful for offensive purposes. It has been shown conclusively during manœuvres in various countries, including America, that the best way of frustrating the attack of enemy warships is by means of aeroplane or seaplane bombers. Hon. Gentlemen have only to take their minds back to the War to remember the devastating effect of concentrated aeroplane machine-gun fire upon advancing cavalry or infantry, and, as to hostile aeroplanes, I know from practical experience that the best way of meeting them was by means of other aeroplanes. Consequently, I do not quite understand the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman in telling us in so many words that the aeroplane is useful only for offensive purposes. As to the first part of the question, which was, in effect, "Why is there this continual increase in the size of the Air Force?" I presume the increase he was referring to is the increase of four squadrons. I would like to answer that question by asking yet another, "Why has not the Air Force been increased by at least 40 squadrons instead of four?" In case any hon. Members opposite are apprehensive lest I have cast overboard pledges of economy, let me hasten to explain what I mean.
It will be remembered that at the beginning of the War the airship and the aeroplane and, for that matter, the seaplane, were in their infancy. Experts assure me that if it had not been for the impetus of the War it would have taken at least half a century for the present development of the aeroplane to have come about. At the commencement of hostilities aeroplanes, and air weapons generally, were positively prehistoric by comparison with the efficiency of modern ones. Further, it will be remembered that at the beginning of the War what demoralised the civil population more than anything else both in this country and in other countries were air raids. Remembering the havoc that was created by the spasmodic and comparatively small air raids of the past, it is not pleasant to contemplate what might be the result of really formidable and well organised air raids in the future, carried out with modern machines and with the advantage of all the experience of the last War. The days are past when England can regard herself as secure simply because she happens to be an
island and has a fleet. We are now in a rather unfortunate geographical position. We are in a different position from any other European country; in fact, we are the only European country which has its capital, its nerve centre, so near to its borders, in our case the coast. London, which is the key of the whole of Great Britain, could, as I think most people will agree, be disorganised by a hostile fleet of bombers in less than 15 minutes. The result of that to the country as a whole must be apparent to every hon. Member.
Let us imagine such an unfortunate contingency, even if it be in the dim future. What would have been the use of our having in the years 1928–29 expended the immense sum of £98,000,000 upon the Army and Navy, and only having increased the defensive capacity of the Air Force by a matter of four squadrons? I should have thought it would have been to our advantage, from the point of view not only of national economy but of national security, if we learned something from the lessons of the War. Is it likely that any country declaring war in the future will waste time in first bringing up its slower engines of war, that is the Army and Navy, as compared with the mobility of its Air Force? That would be a very doubtful proceeding, because it is recognised by many experts that at the beginning of a war whoever gains the mastery of the air will win that war. Any nation which gained control of the air would then be in a position to disorganise completely the key centres and the strategic positions of its opponents. The only reason why that did not happen at the beginning of the last War was that the aeroplane and the airship were in their infancy, and the participants in that War had only a handful of machines between them. I defy any champion of the old school, either in this House or outside, to show cause why that which I have suggested to the House in all deference should not be the natural course of events in future wars. I maintain that with a Navy merely sufficient to protect our trade routes and to undertake the coastal defence of this country, with an Army sufficient for certain garrison work abroad and for the inland defence of the coasts of Great Britain, and with an Air Force that was not only the largest but also the most efficient Air
Force in the world, we should find ourselves in a far stronger position. There would not only be a great saving on the expenditure on the Services as a whole, but we should also impress upon other countries the necessity for a lasting peace.

Mr. BECKETT: Most of the hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have used the Amendment as a means of discussing various matters which are probably important but are, in a sense, minor affairs, by contrast with the main issue. The hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Captain Reid) expressed very logically his belief that if we are to have an Air Force at all we ought to have the largest or, I think he said, the most powerful and most efficient Air Force in the world. Although that is a view with which I, personally, violently disagree, it is, from another point of view, a logical proposition. It is logical to argue that we should have an Air Force that can easily vanquish any possible opponents in the rest of the world, and it is equally logical to argue that we should save our money and have no Air Force at all, but I really do not see that there is any logical or sensible line which can be taken between those two points of view. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Air has come in for a great deal of congratulation during this Debate, but it seems to me that this is the most criminal proposition which has been put before the House since I have been a Member of it, this annual proposal deliberately to expose this country to all the horrors and dangers of attack by air. That is what is really meant when we vote in the House in favour of increasing the Air Force in the steady manner which the present Government are doing.
The last speaker argued that it was absurd to say that aircraft were only useful for the purposes of offence. The same hon. Member went on to say that the best way to stop a naval attack was by means of bombs dropped from aeroplanes. That is not the point. The case against the air arm is that a very strong and well organised Air Force, is that if any of us are injured by hostile air raids our aeroplanes will go and treat our enemies in the same way. This means that for every British baby that is killed by an enemy bomb we shall
send our air fleet to kill 12 of the enemy's babies; and so we are developing war into an exchange of bombing in order to kill innocent men, women and children and so prove which empire is the most glorious. For that reason, I suggest that the House should consider very seriously before allowing itself to be persuaded by what I think is quite fairly called an aggressive Government into this policy of strengthening the air arm.
There only can be two arguments brought up in favour of this policy. The first is that a strong air force may be of great assistance in time of war; and the second is that in times of peace it saves us many lives and a great deal of trouble and expense in policing the distant parts of the Empire. The Air Force may be useful to keep in order tribes who are doing things to which we object, and who are not in possession of an air arm themselves. It seems to me a completely barbarous argument that we should use the air arm for the purpose of keeping order in countries thousands of miles away. What business is it of ours to keep order in those countries? When we consider our air policy, we should also consider its implications. It is no, uncommon thing for us to hear that some tribe in a far off part of the earth has refused to pay taxes due to the great British Empire. Instead of sending a punitive expedition of horse, foot and guns to teach this tribe to obey and to pay our taxes, we now send bombing aeroplanes, and after the people have left their houses we bomb their town and bring them round to what is called sweet reasonableness.
I am not going to enter into the question as to whether we have any right to impose our will upon these people, but, if we agree that the old custom of sending an expedition of horse, foot and guns was a necessary thing to do, then I say that substituting in its place bombing aeroplanes is quite a different proposition, and a very retrograde step. I had one experience during the War of an air raid. It was not a very bad affair, but experts now tell us that the air raids in the last War do not give us any idea of what air raids would be like in the next war. It is a most arbitrary and quite unfair and barbarous method to send
bombing aeroplanes in order to get our wishes carried out. I say that we are deliberately condoning the use of an arm which I think every expert will agree will, if it is allowed to reach its ultimate development, completely wipe out civilisation as we know it to-day. If the air arm is developed to its fullest extent, a future war can only mean the most ghastly and barbarous holocaust that the imagination can possibly conceive. All these things should be carefully considered by the Government before the House decides to add a single extra man or to spend more money on the Air Force. We ought not to countenance the building up of the air arm in order to bomb civilians in undefended towns.
It is a fact that we squealed when the Germans tried this policy upon our country, but surely we are not going to give any other country reason to complain that we wish to adopt a policy of that kind. We know that if hostilities broke out between two countries the very first thing the war staff would do would be to send off the air force across the seas to bomb the enemy, and they would bring back in return a very nice repayment for the money we are told by the Air Force protagonists we pay as insurance to secure peace and prosperity for our country. I suggest that the Air Force can only be used for two purposes. Firstly, to promote Imperialism cheaply in times of peace; and, secondly, for bombing defenceless towns and slaughtering innocent people in times of war. I know the air arm can be used for observation purposes. It can also be used to do cheap and very unsatisfactory police work in time of peace. The Government have made no effort to do away with air armament. As a matter of fact, they are proposing to make it stronger. They are stumbling on with the same blind policy adopted before the War and they have learned nothing whatever by the lessons of the War. The Government go on making all these preparations for war, and we shall find if they get into war that they will be just as ludicrous and helpless as those who struggled during the last War to save humanity.

Mr. PILCHER: It seems to me that no Member of this House who possesses in the smallest degree either an historical sense or a sense of the latent possibilities
of future development, can with levity criticise the Estimates of this great Department over which my right hon. Friend presides. To regard the matter historically, we must carry our minds back to the development of the locomotive, and recollect the lugubrious prophecies which were then made in regard to the development of that new form of transport. That should make us very humble indeed before we prophesy as to the future of this great new means of communication. If we cast our minds forward, there is a similarly humbling prospect. It is quite impossible to calculate what may be the ultimate effect of this great development in cheapening life, in restoring the financial dislocation from which the world is suffering because of the War. Reflections of that kind, reflections on the bravery of our men, on the scientific possibilities of this new development, on its possible effects on our trade and so forth, make me very reluctant to utter a single word of criticism, but I want to say one or two words, scarcely of criticism, but rather of an interrogatory kind, with regard to one portion of the speech of my right hon. Friend last week. I want to ask him a few questions, in the light of some knowledge of the route and of the East, with regard to the civil route to India, as to which he was so optimistic in making his speech a few days ago. The prospect that he held out to us was this rather alluring one:
I believe we shall have set on foot an air route which in the course of time will be so attractive to the business man and the traveller who wishes to save time, that we shall receive a substantial and increasing revenue from it in the matter of charges on mails and passenger traffic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1928; col. 1539, Vol. 214.]
I hope strongly and unqualifiedly that that prophecy will come true, but I should be very glad indeed if my right hon. Friend would tell us a little more about the difficulties that he is really up against, and, if I may be permitted to say so, if he would confront some of those difficulties with a sense of reality. I am rather inclined to think that that kind of prophecy ultimately does the cause of aerial development more harm than good. With regard to the means of locomotion itself, and the distance that has to be covered, my right hon. Friend knows far more than I do. He made
that journey to India in a matter of, I think, 12 days, at the end of 1926 and the beginning of 1927. It has always seemed to me, particularly on the part of Lady Maud Hoare, to have been an act of almost incomparable heroism to have taken that journey at all. When I crossed to Paris, the last time I was in an aeroplane—last Easter, I think it was—we had a fairly bumpy day, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that the experiences of every person in that big aeroplane, on a not unusually windy or troublesome day, were lamentable. I should like to know something more about that wireless operator who left the aeroplane, I believe, at Malta, on the occasion of that wonderful journey.
Have the comforts that can be provided in these machines, the stability, or any of the amenities that can yet be provided, really reached a pitch which could remotely justify a prophecy of this kind in the case of a journey of seven days to Delhi, or nine days to Calcutta, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend last week? Have the amenities of these machines reached anything like the proportions which would justify this sort of optimism in regard to that tremendous journey? I am speaking with very little technical knowledge. I suppose I have been in the air a considerable number of times, and it is bearable in the streaming wind that is going past you at anything from 120 to 200 miles an hour, but what are the conditions inside these narrow spaces where 10 or 12 people must sit, and where there certainly can be no opportunity of sleeping? What are the conditions which would really hold out the sort of hope that my right hon. Friend held out last week?
It is, however, in reference to India and the Indian market, and what I cannot help thinking must be the essential economic basis of this business, if it is ultimately to be economically successful, that I want to say a few words. I can quite understand and appreciate the fact that civil aerial development must go on, if possible, not pari passu, but to some extent collaterally, with the military development of the aeroplane. I can appreciate all the work that my right hon. Friend is doing, and I hope that he will go ahead; and I can appreciate also that he is more or less driven eastwards in the development of these long flights. We
know something about the difficulties of the Atlantic crossing from this side, and, if there are to be these developments, it will be necessary, I imagine, to go eastward. We have always to bear in mind that it is with about the poorest part of the habitable globe that we are trying to set up these communications by this very expensive form of transport. I was very interested to see that the great company which was responsible for the Cairo-Basra flight has brought down the costs very greatly, but are those costs, even now, likely—I ask in a spirit of inquiry—within any reasonable time, to become compatible with the resources of the pockets of the people in those centres in India to which these machines are being sent?
I sometimes wonder whether my right hon. Friend has reflected on the very small number of people in India who would ever be expected to patronise this expensive form of communication. Calcutta has a white population of, perhaps, between 15,000 and 20,000; there may be 8,000 or 10,000 white people in Bombay. I would draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the very interesting speech which was made in Bombay by his own air officer in India, the officer incharge of civil aviation. He remarked that so far there is no perceptible sign of a development of the air sense in the great mass of the Indian population; there is no desire whatever, so far as one can see, to interest themselves in or embark on this particular form of communication. Locally, between Calcutta and Rangoon particularly, there does seem to be a prospect of creating an economic line, and the experiment of a line between Bombay and Karachi, two cities which would naturally link up by air, was made in 1919 or 1920, with, I believe, very fair results. I do not want to be critical or to condemn these experiments at all, but I do think that, in these days when drastic economies in the public finance of the country have become so necessary, it is up to every Department to examine these projects and present them in a spirit of very cold logic to the people of this country.
There are one or two other points that occur to me in connection with this Indian flight. I cannot understand how the difficulty of the monsoon, lasting, as it
does, for three or four months in the year, is to be overcome for the purpose of regular flying communication, and when it comes to a further extension eastward, and going south-east to the Dutch East Indies, and so on, it seems to me that the difficulties which will confront a regular service will be even greater still. I only throw out these hints with the idea of getting at absolute reality in regard to this tremendous experiment. I am as hopeful as anyone can be that it will succeed, but I am a little alarmed when I see that the sum of something like £90,000 or £100,000 which was previously spent annually as a subsidy is now to be increased, and we are not told definitely what the figure is to be. Finally, I should like to say a word of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman on what he has done for the development of this aerial idea. I say it with absolute sincerity, but I ask him whether he can elucidate some of these difficulties that occur to some of us who know the East and know the conditions in our great Eastern Empire.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Last week you, Sir, were good enough to allow me to say a few words on the Motion that you do leave the Chair. Consequently, I have no intention of inflicting a long speech upon the House to-night. After yesterday's Debate, I assure the House that these are my own notes. They are not in any way affidavits. I should like to say a word to-day with regard to airships. When I was speaking last time, I followed two Secretaries of State for Air. To-night, I have followed two enthusiasts on airships, one for and one against, and I have enjoyed the pillow fight very much indeed. I have such respect for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) that I cannot help drawing attention to one or two remarks which he made. We have had a very bad week in aviation, one of the worst weeks I ever remember, but I hope because of that we are not going to lay down absurd rules at to what people may and may not do. We all have a right to risk our lives as we like, and I think it would be a very grave and backward step if we surrounded people with difficulties and stopped their initiative. It may not be a very popular thing to say,
but it is rather like stopping Drake going round the world until you had charted the seas. That sort of thing did not make this country famous, as it always will be for initiative. Might we have a word from the Secretary of State as to what he expects to do with regard to aeroplanes and attempts on the world's record? We have had a very serious setback there. To me, it seems quite extraordinary that with all the practiceflying and all the hundreds of miles flown by these very high speed and dangerous machines that is the first fatal accident. I hope we shall pursue it to the end and regain the speed record of the world. After all, what is aviation but an increased speed in a method of locomotion? Its whole merit depends on speed. There is nothing more important for the prestige of the industry, the prestige of the country, and the prestige of our engineers than that we should hold the record of the world for speed.
May I pass to a somewhat duller subject, the reserve squadrons which my right hon. Friend has started. These squadrons are composed mainly of civilians, and, if you are really going to increase them and attract people to them, you must make their life a little more attractive and a little more comfortable. Your squadron in the North of London has no mess and practically no accommodation whatever, and you seem to me to have given them a machine which is probably the most unsuitable that could possibly be thought of. It was a war machine. It was known even among the pilots as the "Charging rhinoceros." People hated it then. The right hon. Gentleman told us last year that we were not going to have any more war machines in service squadrons. Is it right to put old and rather dangerous machines into the hands of more or less amateurs? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) told us some years ago that these reserve squadrons showed very great economy. They showed £140,000 economy in equipment and £40,000 a year. There is a very great need for spreading them up and down the country. At present, we have only two. I hope soon that we shall see more up and down the country, not from a military point of view, but because we want people to get up in the air. On that point, would the right hon. Gentleman
remember that in a squadron of that sort there are many men who go there because they like machinery and like the air. Will he get them in the air? Many of them are always on the ground and never get a chance of going up in the air—only officers and pilots go up—and yet these men joined the squadron really for love of the air. I hope hon. Members opposite who make pacifist speeches will not think the expenditure of money is all for military purposes. Not at all. You may as well say because you teach your boy to sail a dinghy you are asking him to be a fighter, or a pirate. Just as you want a boy to go to sea for love of the sea, so you want to get English young men into the air for love of the air. You do not want them to kill anyone or to bomb anyone at all. Future communication in this world lies in the air, and we should inculcate love of the air in the mind of the boys of the country just as we inculcate love of the sea.

Mr. KELLY: If the picture drawn by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a correct one little need be said about it. I do not think anyone on this side of the House has at any time objected to science having its fling or to shortening the distance between countries by greater facilities of travel and greater speed. What they have complained of is that, whenever we have these great projects, when we are approaching success the first thoughts of many people seem to be how they can be used for military purposes. It is very plain when we listen to the speeches that have been made to-night. Although reference is made to civil aviation there is a tone running through all these speeches as to how speedily these machines can be turned into machines for the purpose of bombing, or other methods of warfare.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I hope the hon. Member does not associate me with that. I have always said the divergence between the civil machine and the military machine was becoming greater and greater every year.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I do not deny it, but I think we have heard statements made from that bench more than once as to the small amount of time it would take to convert those civil machines into machines of war and destruction. I want to repeat that there is no objection to
the use of the air for travelling purposes; it is to the use of it for the purpose of destruction or in a military direction. I realise that this carries me further than I should be permitted to go to-night, but we must alter our policy in other directions if we are to prevent these machines being used for these purposes. I am sorry the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) has left the House, because while he appeared to set out to praise the Minister, before he had completed his statement his remarks had turned into other than praise. He desired to put us in our place on these benches. He asked us not to object to the progress of this great scientific achievement of riding through the air. He reminded us of the objections to the locomotive, and later told us that it was dangerous and difficult to perform the things of which the Minister had spoken. He pointed out to him the difficulties of reaching India and of travelling from India further East. His speech was quite equal to anything that had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose).
I want to pass from that to much more detailed questions in the hope of securing an answer from the Minister. One hon. Member spoke of the extravagance of the Department. I think it was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Colonel Woodcock). He told us of the extravagance at Cranwell College; of the cost per head of the cadets. He held out to us a prospect that if this was to continue we should be training a number of officers for the Air Force in this country who would be among the most extravagant people within its borders. I hope the Minister will deal with that, and that while dealing with that he will explain how it is that such an enormous amount is spent at that particular college in the training of aviation officers. May I ask how it is—and this was put in the discussion of last week—that he is spending so much at Singapore? What is the reason for that estimate of £496,000—that is the original estimate—of which I think something like £125,000 has to be spent this year? Why are we put to such an expense in that particular part of the Empire? Can we have some explanation as to why we are spending so much at Malta at this time? I find
an item of something like £210,000 for the provision of various quarters and hangars at that particular place. How is it we are spending such an enormous sum at Malta, while in other parts of the East we are also spending many tens of thousands of pounds? I think it is time the people of this country were, informed as to how their money is being spent by the Minister.
Money is not only being spent abroad. At home, we find an item of £300,000 being spent at Gosport, another estimate of £360,000 at Abingdon, one of £233,000 at Bicester, and one of £27,000 at Boscombe Down. Why are we spending these sums? Is this in keeping with the extravagance which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Everton. that the Air Ministry can think of nothing but terms of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds? May we have some explanation of the items on page 25, that is, estimates regarding chemical warfare? Has there been what is termed by some people an improvement with regard to this chemical warfare? Does it mean that we have found some better method of disposing of people—we had better put it in its brutal form—some quicker method, something which will destroy greater numbers? Is that the position at which we have arrived in our research with regard to chemical warfare? There is an item at Farnborough with regard to machinery. At the same time that we are expending considerable sums of money in other parts of the country, we are spending many thousands of pounds at Farnborough. It is a place that is well established and well equipped with machinery, and yet. we find in this Estimate a considerable amount demanded for the installation of new machinery in that particular place. I put these as a few of the items with which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal. Meanwhile, I would suggest to him that with regard to civil aviation we might develop it as much as possible because that is making a real use of the invention. When aviation is made use of for the purpose of warfare, when it is used in order to bomb people, innocent women and children, I think it is an occupation of which none of us can feel proud, although men have to make great sacrifices in going up to perform that task.

Major PRICE: There is one point I should like to raise, and it is in connection with a matter raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), about two years ago. It is in reference to the insurance of the lives of flying men. As. hon. Members knows, the insurance premium of an ordinary healthy life of a man of 18, 21 or 22 would be somewhere about £8 to £10 for a policy of £500. But if you must take into account the question of the flying risk, the premium becomes so high that it is almost impossible for these young men to insure. What I think the whole House would agree to would be that, if these pilots wished to insure for a certain amount, say £1,000, they should be allowed to be insured at the rate of an ordinary healthy life, and that during their flying time the Government or the Ministry should find the difference in the premiums. When you get a young man insured at 30 years of age he is still flying. He may then have a mother dependent upon him, or a sister, or a wife. The amount of pension which would be payable would be exceedingly small, and there would be no ready money when anything happened to him. By the time his flying life is ended, say at 38 or 40, it is quite impossible for him to insure. We all are anxious in every part of the House to encourage thrift and to encourage insurance. I hope that the Minister will see his way to do something towards this end. I know that something has been done and that some arrangements have been made with the insurance companies, whereby the premiums are greatly reduced, but they are far too high to encourage these young men to insure. I am certain that the feeling of the House would be that we should encourage them to insure and that the difference in the amount of premium to be paid between the ordinary healthy life premium and the premium to be paid in respect of the extraordinary risks that these men have to take in the interests of the nation should be found by the nation.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The House will now wish me to deal with the many questions that have been raised to-day and in the Debate of last week. Let me, at the outset, thank hon. Members for the manner in which they have approached
this discussion. From my point of view, it has been a very valuable discussion. I have received many suggestions in the Debate, and I can assure those hon. Members who made the suggestions that I will give them very careful attention. I am not so self-satisfied as to think that my Department, and everything connected with it, is perfect. It is a new Department, it is dealing with many new and difficult problems, and all of us are only too glad to have suggestions and, indeed, criticisms, where criticisms are due.
While a number of individual questions have been raised in the Debate, two subjects, so it seems to me, have been brought into special prominence, first, the question of civil aviation, and, secondly, the question of airships.
admit that when I introduced the Estimates I thought that the course of the Debate would probably run on those lines. I told the House that this year certain developments were taking place in connection with airships and civil aviation that would be of special interest to hon. Members. At the beginning of my answers to the questions raised in the Debate, I will take, first of all, the question of civil aviation, and say at once how grateful I am to my predecossor in office, the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), for having raised the question and for having dealt with a difficult subject in the sympathetic way in which he treated it. The trouble with civil aviation is the trouble in regard to many other things at the present time, and that is the trouble of money. I wish that I had more money for civil aviation purposes. I have, however, taken careful note of the fact that, I think, every hon. Member who has dealt with the question during the course of the Debate, in whatever part of the House he sits, has declared that the civil aviation Vote ought to be higher than it is at present, and I shall be able to call the attention of my colleagues to a unanimity which is rather rare in the deliberations of this House.
The right hon. Member for North Bristol has made various suggestions, to which I will give very careful attention. Whilst I do not in the least resent any of the criticisms made against our civil aviation policy, I cannot help thinking
that he has painted the picture a little bit too black. From the point of view of the length of our civil air routes we may compare unfavourably with certain foreign countries, but from the point of view of reliability and from the point of view of economy of administration I believe that we are, quite definitely, ahead of civil aviation in any other part of the world. Our routes may not extend as widely as the routes of certain other countries, but, at the same time, I do believe that if you analyse the figures you will find that year by year we are making better progress than foreign countries in making civil aviation self-supporting and in bringing nearer the time when it is no longer dependent upon Government subsidies.
I quoted the other day an example or two to illustrate the truth of what I am saying. I quoted the fact that the cost per ton mile has, during the last few years, fallen from 4s. 2d. to 1s. 10d. Take another illustration, the reliability of the British services. We can claim that the reliability of the British services now reaches the high point of 96 per cent., as compared with 75 per cent. four years ago, while if you look to the latest civil air service which has been started, namely, the service between Cairo and Basra, you find that that route has been ruuning with a reliability of no less than 100 per cent. If you take the test of the freight and passengers that the machines are carrying, we can claim that although our services in point of distance are smaller than the service of other countries, we are still carrying three fourths of the passengers between London and Paris, and that year by year the freight, the mails and the passengers carried by British services are going steadily up. I quote these illustrations not to suggest for a moment that we are complacent or that we think that no further progress is needed, but to show the House that we have made a definite advance in the problem which we set ourselves three or four years ago of making civil aviation stand by itself, without the need of Government subsidies.
If hon. Members who are interested in this question will analyse the figures of foreign countries, I think they will find that, whilst we are year by year getting
our service on an economic basis, most of the foreign countries which are operating civil air routes are very little further advanced from the point of view of operating upon an economic basis than they were three, four or five years ago, when first they started. I would not like the House to think that we are satisfied with the present situation and that we do not want to see definite progress made in extending our civil air routes. It is on that account that in this year's Estimates I have included a sum with which I hope to make a beginning with a route between London and India. The sum in this year's Estimates is not a very large one, for the reason that details still need to be worked out. It may be that, with the best will in the world, we cannot do more than make a beginning during this financial year; but the sum that is included in these Estimates is an outward and visible sign of a much bigger programme of developments which we hope to see in the next two or three years.
It is the first instalment of a bigger and more ambitious programme, the immediate object of which will be to run a weekly service between London, Karachi and Calcutta. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) asked me some pertinent questions with reference to the details of this route. I promise the House that I will lay a White Paper as soon as the details are finally settled, and I hope there will be no undue delay in laying this White Paper. Meanwhile, let me deal with the two main criticisms he has made. He said first, will not the discomfort of travelling for seven or eight or nine days in an aeroplane be so great as to make it unlikely that many passengers will use it? He has had experience of flying, and so have I, and so far as I am concerned, whilst I have always been sick on the sea I have never been sick in the air, and I have never noticed the discomforts of which he seems to have had so vivid and unpleasant an example. Even if there are many passengers who will feel these discomforts I believe that there will be a demand from a sufficient number of people, to whom the increase of speed will be so great an advantage in travelling between England and India that they will face a certain limited number of uncomfortable hours. But if I am
wrong, I still think there will be a substantial demand for the carriage of mails.
I think it quite possible that a route of this kind will begin perhaps with mails, and when it has been tried out and found to be punctual and safe that a demand will grow on the part of passengers. When we were making careful inquiries into the whole question of the air route between here and India we discussed the matter with the General Post Office, and the experts of the Post Office were definitely of opinion that, provided the service can run punctually and regularly, in a comparatively short time there would be a substantial amount of mails carried. We also consulted business men on the subject, and they were of the opinion that although the British community in Calcutta and other great Indian centres may be comparatively small, yet there will be a sufficient demand for the quicker transport of mails, which will mean letters going twice as quickly between England and India as they do now, and that every year will bring an increasing revenue to the company which operates this service. I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that a service of this kind must be decided by actual experience. To back our view we have the experience of the European services, where year by year the revenue has increased; and we also have the experience in particular of the Cairo-Basra service, where in the space of a few months the traffic carried has gone up two, three and fourfold. I hope, therefore, that the difficulties which the hon. Member foresees will not be as formidable as he suggested and that the beginning we are making in this year's Estimates will develop into a useful service between England and India, which will not only be of value politically but will bring an increasing revenue to the company which operates the service.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: From the business point of view it will help trade; and that is the most important part of the whole thing.

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. The hon. and gallant Member for Bristol asked me in connection with the India route how it was that the Persian Government prevented us from operating a section along the Persian Gulf, and he
seemed to think that if we had had more money at our disposal the difficulty would not have arisen. I can assure him that there was no question of money in the case at all. As I said in my opening speech on the Estimates, the attitude of the Persian Government is due to some misunderstanding for, as far as I could see, it can do nothing but good to the Persian Government. We asked for no subsidy from the Persian Government, and we were providing them with a quick and expeditious means of transport in one of the most inaccessible parts of the country. All I can say is that we are at the moment in further discussion with the Persian Government, and I hope they will realise that the service would be nothing but an advantage to themselves and that any misunderstanding on the subject will be removed. Then the hon. and gallant Member also raised the important question of our short-service officers, and suggested that by working them in with the Imperial Airway Company we might help civil aviation and at the same time provide ourselves with a sufficiency of young officers on the active list or in reserve. I should like to go further into the question with my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not clear from what he said as to what exactly he has in his mind. As at present advised, I see serious difficulties in the suggestion he has made, but he is so good a friend of the Air Force, and has taken such a keen interest in aviation for so long, that I shall be delighted to go into the details with him.
Let me content myself to-day with suggesting to him certain difficulties that I see in the proposition he has put forward, and I suggest these difficulties not in order to throw cold water on any suggestion, no matter where it comes from, but to show my hon. and gallant Friend how my mind is working, and if there is any substance in them he may be able to remove my difficulties. His suggestion, as I understood it, was that Imperial Airways should take on many more pilots, and that for a period of three months in the year they should go to the Air Force for a certain amount of military training, then come back to Imperial Airways and go on working as pilots in the service of the company. The first difficulty I see in this proposition is the
difficulty of numbers. At present we need nearly a thousand short-service officers. As the House knows, the Air Force as it is organised needs a large number of young officers, for whom there are not senior jobs afterwards unless you create a surplus number of senior posts.
On that account we need to-day between 800 and 1,000 of these short-service officers. At present Imperial Airways are employing between 20 and 30 pilots. Even if his ambitious projects were carried out and the civil routes were increased three or four times, I do not see how we could have anything like the number of young officers that are urgently required for day to day work in the Force. Moreover, he should also remember that the officers are required for work not only here at home but in Iraq and with the Fleet Air Arm. I see grave difficulties from the point of view of training. Supposing Imperial Airways were to undertake training, I see serious drawbacks from the point of view of the administration of the company if the pilots were taken away to Iraq or to the Fleet Air Arm during the time of their engagement with the company. The more I go into the proposal, the more difficulties I see in it. It may be that I do not fully understand it. I suggest these difficulties to the House, not with a view to saying they are insoluble, but to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and ask him to give me further information upon them.

Miss WILKINSON: What happens to these young officers if there are no senior posts for them, and if civil aviation is not to be developed to absorb them? What do they do?

Sir S. HOARE: I will deal with that question in a moment, but I would ask if it is really wise to identify too closely military and civil aviation. I am quite aware that it is advisable to be able to call on civil aviation for a time of emergency, but I am not sure whether, from the point of view of civil flying, it is not wise to let civil aviation develop on its own lines not too closely tied up with military conditions and military considerations. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said just now that he looked forward to civil aviation machines developing
upon different lines from military machines. I believe that that is going to happen, and that the civil machine is going to be more and more distinct from the military machine, just as the Atlantic liner has become quite distinct from the battleship. I am not sure, therefore, that it is wise to embark on a policy which would militarise our civil aviation. I do not want to dogmatise on these questions, for hon. Members can give their own answers to them, but it does seem to me that at least from one point of view it would be a retrograde movement to tie civil flying up too much with military conditions and make the pilots in their civil flying almost exclusively military pilots and thus adopt the position, which may be true to-day but may not be true to-morrow, that you cannot distinguish between military and civil flying. I think I have said enough to show the right hon. Gentleman that, while I see grave difficulties in the proposal he is making, I am very anxious to investigate it further, and I shall certainly continue to give very careful attention to the wide considerations that he has raised in debate both to-day and last week as to the need for developing civil air routes on wider and bolder lines.
Then there is the question just raised by the hon. Lady opposite. She asked what happens to these short service officers when they leave the Force. We do what we can to find them appointments. I would not suggest that we are always successful, but in these Air Estimates we are making provision for a special organisation to find them employment. This organisation is based upon the lines of the Universities Appointments Board and although it has only been in existence for a comparatively short time we have been able to obtain quite a number of suitable posts for these young officers and I believe that, month by month and year by year, we shall be more successful. We are very anxious to keep in close touch with them. We feel we have responsibility as employers and we are certainly doing everything we can to find them appointments when they return to civil life.

Mr. PALING: Do I understand that the Service is still 800 or 1,000 short of these particular officers, and is the reason for it the difficulty they have of finding jobs after their training?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I said that in the Force there were 800 to 1,000 of these officers. It certainly is not true that we are short of them. I pass now to the question primarily raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose), the question of airships. He said that he spoke from very deep conviction and that he made no personal attack on me or anyone else. All of us, who know him well, fully and unreservedly accept what he says. He always speaks with conviction and, because of that, every hon. Member in the House, whether he agrees with his view or not, listens to him with unusual interest and attention.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is that such an unusual thing in this House?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I do not say that, but when an hon. Member speaks with obvious sincerity and has obviously studied the subject on which he speaks, the whole House listens to him with greater attention than it sometimes does to other speeches. I have listened to his speeches, week after week, year after year, and have heard the pessimistic acoounts he gives of the expenditure we are making. Again and again, I have to repeat to him very much the same answer. The answer—and I have to make it tonight—is quite frankly that this is an experiment.
It is a difficult experiment. It is, however, an experiment which I believe any Government is bound to make and the experiment must be judged, not by the claims of experts on the one side or the other, not by the claims of fanatics on the one side or the other, but by the actual results. All I can say to the hon. Member this evening is that we have, as far as is humanly possible, tested the claims of the designers. We have introduced new materials. We have brought in outside scientists. We have studied the lessons of the past. Let me say, in passing, that while I agree with him that the past shows many failures the past also shows the fact that airships have flown safely many thousands of miles. We have studied weather conditions in a manner in which they have never been studied before, and we believe that after this long period of experiment and research we are starting on an experiment—I will not put it higher than this—
with better chances of success than we have ever had in the past. I therefore ask hon. Members to be patient for a little time longer. The two airships will be completed this year and should soon be undertaking their flying tests, and I would say to hon. Members to-night; Let us judge of the success of the programme, not by the claims of one side or the criticisms of the other, but by the actual results shown in the next two years. I come now to a number of separate questions which have been raised by various hon. Members. At the beginning of the Debate the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked me a question as to who would be in control of an operation in which merchant shipping was being attacked from the air.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to make this point quite clear, because it is not unimportant. I wish to know who will be responsible for defending our merchant ships in the future against air attack.

Sir S. HOARE: The
answer depends on the particular circumstances of the operation. If it were on the high seas, it would be a naval operation. It is conceivable, however, that there might be an operation in the narrow seas within reach of land, where the operation would principally be an air operation, and in that case the control would be air control. It would depend on the actual circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am thinking of what I conceive to be the most likely danger, namely, of our merchant ships being attacked by aeroplanes flying from land stations and not carried out to sea by a fleet. I do not think this last is practicable, but in the case of aeroplanes flying from land stations, who will be responsible for defending merchant ships?

Sir S. HOARE: In either case, the answer must depend on the circumstances. If the operation is principally a naval operation it will be controlled by the Navy; if it is principally an air operation it will be controlled by the Air Force.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who is to supply the machines? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware
that the Fleet air arm is a tactical arm and cannot be separated from the Fleet and sent off on convoy.

Sir S. HOARE: It would be a case of co-operation between the services. The land-based aeroplanes would co-operate with the ship-borne aeroplanes. It is, I say again, a question which must depend on the circumstances of the case. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) raised several questions and made an attack upon my Department for being extravagant. In the kindness of his heart he appeared to dissociate me from the officials of my Department. I cannot accept a position of that kind. I do not agree with him that I am badly served by the financial side of my Department. I think I am very well served, and I take full responsibility for any items in these Estimates, or any features of the financial policy of the Air Ministry which my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to criticise. I cannot help thinking, however, that he was a little unfortunate in the two items which he selected for criticism. He took first an item described as "hard-lying" money. If hon. Members look at this item in the Estimates they will see its explanation. My hon. and gallant Friend implied that it was an example of the extravagance of the Air Ministry. In actual practice it is nothing more than this. A certain number of airmen are engaged in work connected with flying boats and aeroplanes actually on the sea and these men are treated exactly like naval ratings. Naval ratings receive this kind of allowance and airmen receive exactly the same. It is not an example of the extravagance of the Air Ministry as compared with the other Service Departments. It is merely an act of justice to men serving in exactly the same position as naval ratings. Then the hon. Member alluded to the cadet college at Cranwell and seemed to think that the Air Ministry was extravagant in making provision for permanent buildings for the Cadet College course. As I told the House the other day, I do not think any building is more urgently required for the Air Force than these permanent buildings for the young men who are subsequently to become officers.

Colonel WOODCOCK: My criticism upon that was that £10,000 was included in the Estimates for this year and the Minister suggested before, that we should be able to discuss this matter. I asked that we might discuss the whole of this scheme before the buildings, costing £260,000, were commenced, and before we voted the £10,000.

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member is at perfect liberty to discuss it at any time. I can assure the House, as I have said, that no building is more urgently needed than a permanent building for these young cadets. At present they are living in war huts. A number of hon. Members have visited Cranwell, and I invite the hon. and gallant Memor any other who is doubtful as to the wisdom of this expenditure to go down there and see for himself, and I am certain he will be convinced that this is most urgently needed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why only £l0,000 this year?

Sir S. HOARE: We must cut our coat according to our money and proceed stage by stage. This is the first stage in the building programme.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A Labour Government will have to finish it.

Sir S. HOARE: We shall see. I am inclined to think differently. I think the hon. and gallant Member is too sanguine. It is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Everton that the cost of the Cranwell cadets compares very unfavourably with that of the cadets at Sandhurst and Woolwich, but if the figures are analysed, it will be found that that is not so. If he compares like with like and cuts out the items of training that are peculiar to the three colleges, he will find that there is very little in it. We have only about 100 cadets as compared with many more at both Woolwich and Sandhurst, and I think I can tell him that as the numbers increase the cost per cadet will go down materially, and there will be no possibility of an unfavourable comparison between Cranwell and the two other Service colleges.
Then there was a series of questions raised by hon. Members connected, so it seemed to me, with the question of disarmament that we discussed a week
ago. Let me only say to-night that those hon. Members have tried to put this dilemma to the House; You must either have an Air Force that is strong enough to drive every other Air Force from the air, or you must have no Air Force at all. That is a dilemma that I cannot accept, and the policy on which we are engaged is the policy of building up an Air Force sufficiently strong to make the risk so great that any country wishing to attack us will not dare to make the attack. I think that answer is sufficient to give to the hon. Members who say that because our Air Force is not strong enough to drive any other Air Force from the air, therefore we should have no Air Force at all.

Mr. DALTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think we have not reached a position of strength in accordance with his definition? Is our Air Force not yet strong enough to make the risk of another country attacking us too great?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think our Air Force is sufficiently strong. Hon. Members will remember that we had a very full inquiry a few years ago by the Committee of Imperial Defence into the whole position, and we came to the conclusion that the minimum needed was 52 squadrons. But at present we have only 31 of these squadrons, and I shall not feel satisfied until I see that programme of 52 squadrons finally completed. Then there was the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), whose speeches in these Debates are always welcome and who asked one or two definite questions. He recurred in one of his speeches to a question he has raised before, namely, the question of the aircraft establishment at Farnborough. I know he thinks the work that we do there is not worth the money that we spend upon it, but I am afraid I do not agree with him, and I would ask him to go down to Farnborough and look round the establishment—I will provide him with any information that he requires on the subject—and I believe I shall convince him that the work we are doing there is very well worth the money we are spending upon it.
He asked me a question about trans-Atlantic flights, and there my answer is very much the answer which was given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochester. I believe myself that
it would be unwise for a Government Department to obtain legislative powers to prevent flights of that kind. So far as my own view is concerned, while I do not wish to disparage bravery and courage wherever they may be shown, I would much rather not see these flights attempted until we have got machines better qualified to make them. At the same time, I do see very grave difficulties in the way of any Department of State attempting to prevent individuals making flights of this kind if they desire to do so. Is it wise to attempt to control these flights, and even if it is wise, is it practicable? How can I or any Department tell when a pilot is actually going to fly? Many of these flights are made and attempted without my knowledge. Is it wise for a Government Department to take upon itself the responsibility of saying whether or not a flight shall he made? While I do not wish to dogmatise on a question of this kind, at present I take the view that it would be unwise for a Government Department to undertake responsibilities of that kind, and I feel sure that the more hon. Members will study the question, the more formidable will they find the difficulties in the way of any control.
There was one further question, raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) at the end of the Debate. The hon. Member took a number of items from the building programme of the Air Force, and gave them as examples of the extravagance of the Air Ministry and of the programme shown in the Estimates. Those examples are illustrations, not of our extravagance, but of our economy, for they rather prove, what I have often told the House, that the Air Force units up to the present have in many cases been living in war huts and that we have no permanent barracks, or scarcely any, owing to the fact that we are a new Service. The time has come when we have to have permanent accommodation for our officers and men if they are to be properly housed. I am dealing with buildings alone in this country, and I can tell the hon. Member that that expenditure is needed, first of all, to provide permanent accommodation to replace old huts and, secondly, to provide accommodation for certain new units.
So far as Singapore is concerned, the accommodation there, as I told the House the other day, is a part of the general
Singapore scheme, and assuming Singapore is to be a big naval base, obviously there must be accommodation for an Air Force operating both from the land and from the fleet. In the case of Malta, Malta has now become an important air base, and the aerodrome accommodation there is inadequate. Unfortunately, land is very expensive in that thickly populated island, and we have now to spend a considerable sum of money in buying new aerodromes and making new aerodrome accommodation. I think I have now dealt with practically all the questions that have been raised to-day, and, indeed, a week ago.

Mr. KELLY: There are still two points, one with regard to chemical warfare, and the other with regard to machinery and plant at Farnborough.

Sir S. HOARE: With regard to chemical warfare, that comes under the War Office, and all that the Air Ministry is responsible for is a small grant-in-aid for the work for which the War Office is responsible. As regards the machinery at Farnborough, I am not quite sure to what machinery the hon. Member refers.

Mr. KELLY: The items of £50,000 and £3,000 on page 22 of the Estimates.

Sir S. HOARE: That is materials and stores for the experimental work that is being carried out at Farnborough. I have now dealt with practically all the questions that have been raised. Let me again thank hon. Members for having made very valuable suggestions to me in the course of the Debate.

Major PRICE: What about insurance?

Sir S. HOARE: That question was raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, North (Captain Guest) about two years ago. I took what action I could with the insurance companies, and I am glad to say that they made a very substantial reduction in the premiums that they were charging flying officers. Indeed, they made such substantial reductions that I am inclined to think that no useful purpose would be served by reopening the question with them so soon after the changes have taken place. But I can tell the hon. and gallant Member that I will take into account the suggestion that he has made to me, as to the State paying for the excess premiums charged for the risks in which flying officers are involved, and I will see if anything further can be done.

Question put, "That '32,500' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided; Ayes, 217; Noes, 90.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[9.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gates, Percy


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Ley ton)
Christie, J. A.
Goft, Sir Park


Allen,J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Clayton, G. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grace, John


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J.(Kent, Dover)
Colman, N. C. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cope, Major William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Berry, Sir George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bethel, A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Blundell, F. N.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hamilton, Sir George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Harland, A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major sir A. B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bralthwalte, Major A. N.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir philip
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Drewe, C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
England, Colonel A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ersklne, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henjey)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ersklne, James Malcolm Monteith
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan


Buchan, John
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fenby, T. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Finburgh, S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Forrest, W.
Hilton, Cecl'


Carver, Major W. H.
Fraser, Captain lan
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smithers, Waldron


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Ho.W.G.(Ptrst'ld.)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nuttall, Ellis
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford. Luton)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Pennefather, Sir John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Frederick George
Thom, Lt.-Col J. G. (Dumbarton)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lamb, J. Q.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, F. C, (Aberdeen, South)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tinne, J. A.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pilcher, G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Long, Major Eric
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tomlinson, R. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Preston, William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lougher, Lewis
Price, Major C. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Raine, Sir Walter
Waddington, R.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ramsden. E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lumley, L. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Gien
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Mecdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


McLean, Major A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wiggins, William Martin


Macmilian, captain H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rye, F. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Capt. D.
Salmon, Major I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Withers, John James


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W, J.


Meller, R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)



Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Skelton, A. N.
Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.C )



Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Alexander. A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hardle, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Loes (Kelghley)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Townend, A. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Compton. Joseph
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 88.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[10.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hamilton, Sir George
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Albery, Irving James
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Plicher, G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Atkinson. C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ralne, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Lieut-Col. Sir Vivlan
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Berry, Sir George
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Reid, Capt, Cunningham (Warrington)


Bethel, A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Remer, J. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ropner, Major L.


Briscoe, Richard George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchan, John
Hume, Sir G. H
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C. )


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Christle, J. A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker, Herbert William
Storry-Deans, R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lougher, Lewis
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cope, Major William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Lumley, L. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmlilan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tomlinson. R. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


England, Colonel A.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waddington, R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.


Fenby, T. D.
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Finburgh, S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wells, S. R.


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Fraser, Captain lan
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wiggins, William Martin


Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gates, Percy
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grace, John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Withers, John James


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Womersley, W. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Hacking, Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny..




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universitie 


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfey, J.
Dalton, Hugh


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Day, Harry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dennison, R.


Baker, Walter
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Dunnico, H.


Barr, J.
Charieton, H. C.
Gardner, J. P.


Batey, Joseph
Compton, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph




Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)


Gosling, Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Snell, Harry


Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Groves, T.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sutton, J. E.


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Viant, S. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rose, Frank H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewls
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 89.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[10.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Albery, Irving James
Fenby, T. D.
Lamb, J. Q.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Finburgh, S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Allen. J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Forrest, W.
Lona, Major Eric


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Looker, Herbert William


Atkinson, C.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lougher, Lewis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.


Bethel, A.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Blundell, F. N.
Grace, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McLean, Major A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Captain H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Capt. W, D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Buchan, John
Harland, A.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Meller, R. J.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Moore Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evefyn (Aston)
Henderson,Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Christle, J. A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Clayton, G. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Colman, N. C. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter)


Cope, Major William
Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Couper. J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Nuttall, Ellis


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Oakley, T.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pennefather, Sir John


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Pilcher, G.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Gerald B.
Preston, William


Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Price, Major C. W. M.


England, Colonel A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ramsden, E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Smithers, Waldron
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carilsle)


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wells, S. R.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Storry-Deans, R.
Wiggins, William Martin


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ropner, Major L.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Styles, Captain H. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wilson Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Salmon, Major I.
Thom, Lt.-Col J. G. (Dumbarton)
windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Withers, John James


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.
Womersley. W. J.


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Tomlinson, R. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Shepperson, E. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.



Skelton, A. N.
Waddington, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward,Lt-Col.A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphlliy)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh. J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.



Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SMOKING).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether any important question cannot be raised by any Member of the House between now and Eleven o'clock, We are in doubt as to what the position is, and, if you would guide us, we should know exactly what to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite in order to raise questions on the Motion for the Adjournment, but, of course, it is usual to give notice to the Minister concerned.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Adjournment of the House is moved now, and the Debate continues until Eleven o'clock, do we understand that we have to move the Adjournment again in order to carry on until half-past Eleven?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: There is a matter that is really not of very great importance, and I have not been able to intimate to you, Sir, that I was going to raise it, but I did mention the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. It
is a small matter, arising out of some notices which you caused to be posted about the Lobbies of the House, affecting the rights and privileges and customs of Members of the House—new notices which rather restrict the smoking rights of Members of the House. I am not objecting, because I think that the regulation is well founded, on the whole, but there is one bit of it that, as it seems to me, strikes at the root of what was a very pleasant custom, namely, that Members of this House were allowed to light their cigarettes in the Inner Lobby after the House had risen for the day. No doubt the reason for the general rule is on account of the carpets and so on, but that does not apply in the Inner Lobby, and I am asking you, on behalf of a certain section of the private Members of the House, if you could relax that rule so far as it applies to the Inner Lobby after the House has risen.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to discuss matters of that kind here, but, if Members care to approach me at the proper time, I shall always give consideration to what they have to say. My desire is to suit the convenience of Members. I may say that what I did was only to remind them of an old-established rule of which there have been occasional breaches of late.

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE, DONCASTER AREA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place, because I wanted to raise what, to the area around Doncaster, is a very important question. Questions have been put to the Minister of Agriculture during the past few days, and the replies have led us to believe that nothing is going to happen, at least during the present year. In view of the various Reports which have been submitted by Commission after Commission, intimating that a fairly large area of land is lying derelict for want of drainage schemes, it does seem to me that the Government, in ignoring the existing facts and the recommendations of Commission after Commission, lay themselves open to the severest criticism. It is perfectly
true to say that the Minister of Agriculture has scarcely had time to examine the Report of the latest Commission, but it is also true to say that the Reports of previous Drainage Commissions were such as to compel the Minister to set up a special Commission for a special area which requires priority treatment. Now that Commission has reported, and has let the Minister of Agriculture see the grave possibilities which may arise from leaving this area untouched by a special drainage scheme, and the results that are likely to follow, not only to agricultural land, but to the health of large numbers of people who are more or less dependent on that
area—

Mr. SPEAKER: At Question Time yesterday it was stated, in reply to the hon. Member's own question, that that is a matter which would involve legislation, and, therefore, it is not a matter which can be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Only matters of administration can be raised on that Motion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not intend to transgress your ruling, Sir. My only point in raising the question was that, in view of the seriousness of the problem in this area, which has been scheduled for priority treatment, it seems to me the Minister might very well be urged to examine it with a view, if possible, of dealing with it before 1929. The Minister indicated, in reply to questions, that nothing will happen this year. It is due to those who represent tens of thousands of people who are dependent on drainage schemes for their health and their livelihood to urge on the Minister to take steps at the earliest possible moment to see, first, that the land is not allowed to go completely derelict, and that people are not going to be submerged as a result of the failure of the Government to do something instantly.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.